1950-05-16

ORDERS IN COUNCIL


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table a summary of orders in council passed during the period April 1 to April 30, 1950. It will be remembered that the summary for the period March 1 to March 31 was tabled on April 17.



REPORTS AND PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
International convention for northwest Atlantic fisheries, and Final Act signed on February 8, 1949.-Mr. Claxton.
Report of the operations under the Bretton Woods Agreements Act during the fiscal year
1949-50.-Mr. Sinclair.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 211, for the relief of Reuben Robert Shapiro.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 212, for the relief of Mary White Sheppard.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 213, for the relief of Ulderic Cadieux.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 214, for the relief of Helen Irene Barney Hutchinson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 215, for the relief of Alice Jean Young Gulliver.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 216, for the relief of Joseph Lucien Alphonse Martel.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 217, for the relief of Georges Emile Bernier.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 218, for the relief of Margaret Veronica Quinn Davies.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 219, for the relief of Max Gurevitch. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 220, for the relief of Romuald Joseph Jean Lamoureux.-Mr. Winkler.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I wonder if I may direct a question to the Prime Minister, which he may wish to
think over before he answers? I do so most earnestly and respectfully. Would the Prime Minister consider going to Winnipeg this week so that he may see with his own eyes the destruction and disaster being suffered by our people?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am sorry, but it will not be possible for me to go to Winnipeg this week. I think the announcements that will be made shortly as to what is to be done in connection with the whole situation will satisfy those who wish their sympathy expressed as vigorously as possible to the population that is so distressed in that area.



EFFECT OF DISASTER UPON RURAL AREAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Following the observations that have been made with regard to the situation in Manitoba, and having regard to the statements that were made yesterday, may I suggest to the government that, in considering the things that must be done, full recognition be given to the extent of the disaster to the rural areas? While the tragedy and the destruction in Winnipeg is attracting attention through the necessity of protecting buildings there, there is also a heavy loss in the rural areas, in a considerable part of which crops will not be planted this year. I suggest that the government, in announcing its plans in regard to Winnipeg, also announce what is to be done for the rural areas that are affected.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The plans under consideration do not apply exclusively to Winnipeg; they apply to the whole area that has been affected by these disastrous floods.



APPLICATION OF NATIONAL HOUSING ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr, Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Resources and Development? Could the minister, either today or quite soon, give the house some details as to the use which the government intends to make of the National Housing Act in connection with the

Inquiries of the Ministry disaster in Winnipeg, and also as to the proposed amendments to that act which were referred to in a dispatch appearing in this morning's Globe and Mailt


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: The act is available for use to the fullest extent by any individual or province wanting to use it. With respect to the proposed amendments mentioned in the dispatch, I do not know of any.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was the Globe and Mail report completely wrong?



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. A. Riley (Saint John-Albert):: Can
the Minister of Resources and Development inform the house whether a definite date has been set for the official and formal opening of Fundy national park in Albert county, New Brunswick?


Robert Henry Winters: I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question, and to thank him, too, for the constructive interest he has taken in the great amount of work which has been put into the development of this splendid park area. After discussing the matter with Premier McNair and the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg), it has been decided that the official opening date will be July 29.



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chesier S. McLure@Queens: I gave notice of the following question to the Acting Minister of National Revenue: On March 31, after the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) had spoken on his resolution regarding the appointment of a special committee to consider the annual report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, I rose to protest-this will be found on page 1456 of Hansard-against the discrimination against my province. My question to the minister was whether he would add a representative from the province of Prince Edward Island, and to that question I have had no reply.


Robert Henry Winters: I received notice of the hon. member's question, and I have also examined Hansard and I find there is little I can add to the reply made at that time by the Minister of National Revenue. I think

the question is one that could just as properly be asked of the whip of the hon. member's own party. As I understand it, once the size of a committee and the representation of the various parties on it are determined, the composition of the committee is a matter for the respective whips.


Mr. McLure:: The whip of our party would have nothing to do with the appointment of a Liberal from Prince Edward Island on that committee.



ENEMY PROPERTY


[Stage Direction]
TO ANSWER TO QUESTION ON MAY 15 On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulion (Kamloops):: The Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley) is not in the house at the moment, and perhaps my question may be taken as notice. Yesterday, as recorded at page 2518 of Hansard, the minister answered a question I had asked with regard to the assets of former enemies in the hands of the custodian of enemy property. I notice that the answer to the first part of the question indicates a total of $51 million odd, whereas the break-down in the answer to the second part totals only $16 million odd. Will the Secretary of State have the figures checked, or offer some explanation for the discrepancy? Perhaps he would be kind enough to give a supplementary answer to the question.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fori William):: On a
question of privilege, I should like to deflate a bubble that has been blown up in various parts of this country in the form of a statement that the best students in Canada go to the United States. One of the finest students in Canada has come back from Baltimore, where he took a post-graduate course to settle down in the national research council, and he comes from Fort William.



TOBACCO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Ferguson (Simcoe Norih):: The
tobacco farmers of Ontario constitute one of the greatest tax sources in this country, and in this connection I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the banks have the tobacco farmers of Ontario in the palms of their hands and are putting the old squeeze

on them, will the Department of Agriculture in order to prevent some tobacco farmers from being ruined, look into the conditions facing these men this season, and, if possible, grant loans so that they may plant crops and reap a harvest this year?


Mr. Abbott:: Free enterprise.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: I do not know what answer I can give at the moment. I shall look into the matter and answer later.


Douglas Charles Abbott: that the house go into committee of supply.



FLOOD CONDITIONS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before Your Honour leaves the chair there are a few words I should like to say. I wish to do so because I have just come back from spending a few days in my home city and province, where our people are undergoing a serious disaster and suffering grievous losses-even more serious than some of us were forecasting a couple of weeks ago. I have read the reports that were made yesterday by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), and I know that the house is familiar with the bare facts of the situation. I shall not repeat anything that either of those ministers said.
I was called upon repeatedly during the days that I was home to bring back certain messages-one in particular-and I felt that I should waste no time in bringing those messages to the attention of this house and of the government. The message in particular was this: Next to the concern for the immediate emergency, about which I shall say something in a moment, the people affected, and those who are not affected but who are concerned for their fellow citizens, are hoping that there will soon be the assurance that the financial aid offered will take the form of direct assistance to the individuals who need it, direct compensation for losses suffered. I want to join with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) in saying that the individuals affected are not just those in the urban and suburban areas who are losing their homes, furniture and personal belongings, but also the farmers of the whole Red river valley from Winnipeg to Emerson.
I realize that the assurance of federal financial assistance has already been given in the house. It was so stated by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) a week ago yesterday, and I was one of those who immediately 65946-160
Manitoba Flood
expressed thanks on behalf of the people back home that the assurance had been given. I must confess that when I got home I discovered that the general terms in which that assurance was given somehow or other did not give the people who are having their homes destroyed and who are losing their furniture the assurance that they personally would be compensated for their losses and enabled to get back on their feet.
I am sorry that the personal arrangements of the Prime Minister are such that he cannot accede to the suggestion I made when we were on orders of the day. I felt it would be worth while for him to make a trip to Winnipeg while the flood waters are still high, if he possibly could. I still feel he should go. If I may say so, the purpose of his going there would not be for sightseeing or making a speech but rather that he might see with his own eyes what our people are suffering. I am sure if he would travel through or over the Red river valley from Emerson to Winnipeg, and get as close as he could to the areas under water, if he could see hundreds and hundreds of homes halfsubmerged, it would save a great deal of argument when the time comes to decide whether or not financial assistance is to take the form of compensation directly to the people who need it.
I could, like all members from the area affected-and we have all been home since the tragedy has been upon us-tell story after story of young people, people newly married and just setting up their homes, people in middle age, old people who have retired, people at all stages and in all classes and walks of life who have lost heavily or lost all. The spirit of the Winnipeg people is the spirit of all Canadians in time of disaster or tragedy. A great deal has been said about their heroism and the way in which everyone is pitching in to do the things that have to be done. That is all true, but I must confess there is also a considerable feeling of resentment and bitterness at what has overtaken the people, and at the terrible slowness with which some authorities acted in the situation.
There is now being organized a voluntary Manitoba flood relief fund, and the indications are that Canadians from coast to coast will subscribe to it heavily and voluntarily. There are indications that there will be subscriptions from the United States and other countries as well. The fact that Canadians from coast to coast will be subscribing to the fund surely makes it clear that we would be more than justified in taking out of the federal

Manitoba Flood
treasury whatever it may be necessary to take to compensate those people who have suffered heavy losses.
In this instance, Mr. Speaker, I am not speaking so much, as I sometimes do and as we all do, for the people of my own constituency, because it so happens that the working people of Winnipeg North Centre, who frequently are hit by disasters of one kind and another, although there is flooding in Point Douglas and water in many basements, have not been hit as heavily in this instance as the people of the other Winnipeg and surrounding constituencies-Winnipeg North; Winnipeg South Centre; Winnipeg South, which has suffered very heavily; Selkirk, St. Boniface, Provencher, Springfield, and so on.
When a tragedy like this occurs some of the differences between us melt away, and we are all anxious that those who have suffered should receive the kind of assistance they need. So it is that all of us from the affected area are speaking for all who have sustained losses. It is utterly impossible for a family that has lost everything to try to get back on its feet. A loss of $2,000, $3,000, $4,000 or $5,000, in some cases even more, such as many people have sustained, is more than one family can stand. Nevertheless the total loss is such that the amount required to meet this need would not greatly upset the national budget. In fact I would hope that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) might also accept my suggestion about going to Winnipeg, because I imagine he will have to be called in when there is a discussion about the amount of money involved.
I know there are frequent calls for economy from the floor of the house, and the Minister of Finance will say that we must be careful now. I think if the Minister of Finance, who is not noted for his soft heart, were to take a trip this week to Winnipeg and see what our people are suffering, it would make a difference when the time comes to discuss the amount to be voted to compensate for the losses involved.
The main plea I make to the government at this time is that they make it clear, just as soon as they possibly can, that the financial assistance to be made available, in keeping with the assurance given by the Prime Minister on Monday, May 8, will take the form of compensation directly to individuals who have suffered losses, directly to those who need it.
I was sorry that the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) had to give a negative answer to the question I asked on the orders of the day. I had in mind a front

page story in this morning's Globe and Mail under the by-line of Warren Baldwin. The heading of the article is:
Housing Act will assist Winnipeg rehabilitation, federal minister implies.
It is a lengthy story about various things Mr. Winters had said would be done, and it contains this paragraph:
Resources minister Winters said today that legislation such as the National Housing Act would be used to the limit of its scope. Consideration is also being given, he disclosed, to the possibility of special arrangements under the act and of changes in the legislation, if necessary.
It was the point about changes in the legislation if necessary that appealed to me most. To tell people who already have heavy mortgages on their homes, and whose homes are now flooded, that they can secure a further loan under the National Housing Act is of no help whatsoever, because a further loan will simply mean that they will then owe more on their homes than they are worth. The suggestion that there might be changes in the act to cope with this particular situation was the one that held out a bit of hope. I am sorry that the minister had to give a negative answer today. I hope that, having had a chance to read Warren Baldwin's story in this morning's Globe and Mail, he will think the matter over, come to the conclusion that it was a good idea anyway, and perchance give a more favourable answer later.


Mr. Fraser:: It was also on the air.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) says that it was also on the air. That is true. I heard it this morning. It was on the air that the Minister of Resources and Development had disclosed that assistance would be forthcoming, and possible changes in the act.
There are a great many steps that the government can take. Something can be done by making changes in the National Housing Act. Something can be done by way of stockpiling necessary materials. Surely we should see to it that there is no unemployment in the greater Winnipeg area for some time to come, having regard to the reconstruction and rehabilitation work that will have to be done there.
All that lies in the future. The immediate concern, next to the emergency itself, is that there be an assurance that the financial aid offered will take the form of direct compensation to those individuals, both in rural and in urban and suburban areas, who need it.
While I am on my feet may I say it strikes me that, although it has meant a

great deal to the people of Winnipeg and the Red river valley to have the interest, sympathy and attention of all Canada and of other countries during this time of crisis- and that interest and sympathy have taken many tangible forms which have meant a great deal-it is to be noted that the siege is one that will last for some considerable time. Even if news comes in two or three days that the waters have started to recede, it will not mean that the danger is over. Hon. members must realize, as they will from the reports that have been received, that large residential areas are being protected by the tremendous dikes that have been built. Even though the water should drop three, four or five feet there is still danger of flooding in those areas if those dikes should go.
I want to add my word of appreciation of the assistance rendered by those who have done so much hard work in the city these past few weeks, both civilians and service personnel. It has been a magnificent job indeed. One hesitates to select any particular group to which to pay tribute, but I do want to say a special word about the young people of the greater Winnipeg area. These are the younger people whom we sometimes think of as the modern generation, whom we sometimes consider not quite as responsible citizens as we think we were, who sometimes make a little more noise than we think they should. During the few days I was at home I discovered that they are all in work clothes, all in rubber boots, spattered with mud from the work they are doing-young men and young women, yes boys and girls. When you see them riding on the streetcars they are not singing or talking or cracking jokes; they are dead tired from the work they have done. I feel that special tribute should be paid to the young people who have done so much.
The other concern that will be with our people for some considerable time after the waters start to recede is the danger to the health of our community. That, I believe, is one of the reasons why efforts have been made, with considerable success, to get a great many of our people out of the city. The estimates vary all the way from 80,000 up to 100,000 as to the number of people who have left Winnipeg, many of them under compulsion because their homes have been flooded or they have been ordered to evacuate, but many of them voluntarily in order to relieve the strain on public utilities, the health authorities and the hospitals. For many weeks the health of our city will have to be watched, and we will need all the help we can get from any source.
55946-160i
Trans-Canada Highway
After all that is done; after the dirt and refuse have been cleaned away and we are reassured as to the health of our people; after the rehabilitation has started, then our people will want action, definite and responsible, that will lead to steps being taken to ensure that a disaster of this kind will never recur. I am not an engineer, and I cannot propose the exact details of a solution; but I am satisfied that if there is the will to do it, and if the money is made available, engineers can find a way to make sure that this tragedy will not be repeated in future years.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY    AGREEMENT WITH NEW BRUNSWICK

Daniel Aloysius Riley: Mr. Speaker, I have noted with considerable regret that as yet no agreement has been entered into between the federal government and the government of New Brunswick with respect to that portion of the trans-Canada highway project which will cross my province. Since the season for road construction is rapidly approaching, I would urge the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) and the officers of his department to do everything possible to bring about such an agreement with respect to the trans-Canada highway in the province of New Brunswick.
I am not clear as to the points of difference between the negotiating parties, but I am wondering if it is the question of route. If that matter is of concern to the parties and keeps them at variance, I would strongly urge that every assurance be given the people of the city of Saint John and the surrounding area that the trans-Canada highway will pass through that city. I hear of the possibility of the highway coming down the river to Fredericton from the northern part of the province, crossing the bridge there and proceeding via Jemseg on route No. 9 to the town of Sussex. If this route were followed it would completely by-pass Saint John, the commercial centre of the province, and the centre of the area within which the most interesting and most important tourist attractions are located. On the other hand if the highway were brought through Saint John it would mean that this important artery would be forty miles closer to the town of St. Stephen in Charlotte county, which has been the port of entry for the bulk of the tourists coming to the maritime provinces from the United States.
This, of course, is a matter of real concern to us in Saint John and vicinity. Recently we learned that the federal government was making a large grant toward the construction of a car ferry which would transport tourists

Postal Service
from the coast of Maine to a port in a neighbouring province. We in New Brunswick were happy to learn of this assistance, because we are always glad when the federal government decides to give any help whatever to any of the maritime provinces; but we feel that our province will suffer so far as the tourist industry is concerned, in that many tourists who normally would come through New Brunswick may be diverted directly to Nova Scotia as a result of the operation of this ferry. So we feel that if the trans-Canada highway were to follow route No. 2 from Edmundston to Fredericton, thence to Saint John via routes 2 and 2A, and from there to the town of Sussex, it would at least partly make up for what may be a considerable reduction in the flow of tourists who normally would come through our province.
On behalf of my own constituency, and on behalf of those living in the particular section of New Brunswick whence I come, I would again urge that the federal government do everything possible to ensure that the trans-Canada highway be brought down the Saint John river, or by the shortest practical route to the city of Saint John and from there on to Sussex and Moncton.



POST OFFICE


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, on May 9 the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) and the Acting Postmaster General (Mr. Lapointe) made statements in regard to the exercise by the Postmaster General of the powers conferred upon him under regulations 204 and 205. This subject had been under discussion before, and I would remind the house of the unusual way in which it was dealt with at that time. Questions had been asked on different occasions as to the procedure being followed in denying the use of the mails in certain cases. It had been said that a clear statement would be given to the house as to what the situation was. We were told that the subject would be discussed. When the first item of the Post Office Department was called on May 9, the Minister of Justice took advantage of the occasion to make a statement, and he was followed by the Acting Postmaster General. Then the discussion was stopped by the device of presenting a motion that the committee rise and report progress; the use of that unusual device should not be overlooked. The house had been assured there would be a discussion of this subject. Two ministers of the crown presented statements which called for discussion, but the discussion was stopped by a device that can be employed at any time by a government that makes use of its majority,

without regard to its undertakings and without regard to the right of the house to have a discussion on a subject of this kind.
I am mentioning this matter again, because one of the departments to be called when the Speaker leaves the chair is that of the Minister of Justice. It therefore seems appropriate that I should make certain remarks about this subject on the first occasion which presents itself. The matter we are considering is not whether the authority of the Postmaster General is to be exercised in relation to certain brokers in this country; it is how the authority and powers of the Postmaster General under the postal regulations are to be exercised in any case. Often it is only when certain publicity attaches to a particular act of some department that we learn what the situation is. I certainly was unaware of the number of orders that have been issued denying the use of the mails, and the orders which have been issued against brokers are only a small percentage of the outstanding orders of this nature. There are at the present time approximately 1,100 outstanding orders denying the use of the mails. They are issued against many organizations, and many individuals in different activities. The very nature of some of the organizations suggests that it would be wise for the members of the house to give careful consideration to the way in which this power is being exercised. Amongst the organizations which have been denied the use of the mails are branches of the Legion in different parts of Canada; service clubs; religious orders; athletic organizations; social organizations of various kinds. I find in one case there is a teachers organization, and similar action has been taken with respect to a large number of individuals from one end of the country to the other.
What we should consider, therefore, is the exercise of this authority in relation to many types of organizations throughout Canada, and whether it is ini keeping with our traditional practices, and our belief that every man and every woman is presumed to be innocent until he or she is proven guilty.
The explanation given by the Minister of Justice and the Postmaster General as to what had taken place was not satisfactory. The explanation of the Minister of Justice was devoted to the limitation of the use of the mails to certain brokers. At page 2333 of Hansard he is reported at the outset of his remarks as saying:
Mr. Chairman, the matter of the protection of the mails from being used for schemes devised or intended to deceive the public is one of considerable importance. From one standpoint it affects certain rights of individual brokers, and of course no government wishes to deal unfairly with them. From another standpoint it affects the efficient workings

of a free society; for I submit, sir, it is important to a free society that the integrity of its methods in raising risk capital for the development of its natural resources should be protected from any corruption by fraud,
I do not think there is any hon. member in this house who is not convinced that society should be protected from the raising of money by fraud. But one of the basic principles of our society is that it shall be protected under the law, and not by arbitrary decisions of any official acting on his own discretion. We pride ourselves that we rely on laws enforced by the courts, and we should seek to protect society by clearly stated laws, and by charges laid under those laws, so that the rights of the individual can be determined by judicial consideration.
Again I would point out that we are not dealing with the exercise of this right only in regard to brokers. We are dealing with the exercise of this right in regard to a great many organizations and people. Nevertheless it is appropriate to consider what was said about the orders that had been placed against certain brokerage firms and individuals as a result of some of their activities. The Acting Postmaster General gave a few quotations from statements which were alleged to have been contained in circulars sent out by some unnamed broker. He then informed the house that steps had been taken by the Postmaster General to obtain some information from officials of the government of the province of Alberta about those properties. We, of course, did not hear the whole story, and the Acting Postmaster General would be the last person to suggest that we did. This thought should be borne in mind. After being thus informed by the minister of the type of fraud that was suggested by the statements made, every hon. member in this house may wonder why no prosecutions were laid under the section of the Criminal Code provided in cases of that kind.
I hope the Minister of Justice will not on this occasion say that he would remind us that this is a responsibility of the provincial attorneys general. This information has been obtained by the Postmaster General by methods that are not available to any provincial attorney general, except where an individual wishes to lay a charge, which he can do in any case. This information has been obtained from special sources available to the Post Office Department. If they have that information, then those officials could lay a charge. If the fraud is there, surely section 414 of the Criminal Code would be wide enough to deal with the case, if it is a clear-cut example of fraud. Section 414 of the Criminal Code reads as follows:
414. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to five years' imprisonment who, being a
Postal Service
promoter, director, officer or manager of any body corporate or company, either existing or intended to be formed, makes, circulates, or publishes, or concurs in making, circulating or publishing any prospectus, statement or account which he knows to be false in any material particular, with intent to induce persons whether ascertained or not to become shareholders or partners, or with intent to deceive or defraud the members, shareholders or creditors, or any of them, whether ascertained or not, of such body corporate or company, or with intent to induce any person to entrust or advance any property to such body corporate or company, or to enter into any security for the benefit thereof.
If there is clear-cut fraud, there is the section under which a charge can be laid. If the Minister of Justice thinks that this section is not wide enough, the appropriate course is for him to introduce an amendment to the Criminal Code which will widen the application of the code to those cases where the mail is used in a manner which he suggests is fraudulent. It was noticeable that the Acting Postmaster General used the term "fraud orders". If there are fraud orders based upon knowledge of fraud, then either action should be taken under existing laws, or, if those existing laws are not wide enough, procedure should be provided by appropriate amendments to the Criminal Code.
It is easy for the Minister of Justice to surround himself with a cloak of virtue and seek to divert people's attention from the measure of arbitrary authority that is being exercised by saying: We do not want any cases of fraud where money is being raised for development. No, we do not. But we want that fraud prevented under the law, and not under the whim of some official or of the Minister of Justice himself. After all, we have not had too convincing evidence of the exercise of discretion by the Minister of Justice under existing laws. We recall that the Minister of Justice, under the direction of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), broke one law of this parliament and has never apologized for it. We also remember that, not so long ago, the same Minister of Justice told us that our laws in regard to communism are adequate. Yet we are informed that there is to be an amendment to the Official Secrets Act, apparently for the very purpose of strengthening laws which, according to the Minister of Justice, are now adequate.
The very fact that fraud of all kinds should be prevented is no reason for attempting to prevent that fraud by improper methods. The worse the methods are, the more desirable it is that we should deal with fraud or conduct of that kind under a system which we have asked our people to respect. The way in which we can most effectively protect our society is to be sure that when there is wrongdoing, no part of


Mr. Garson:: I think for the sake of accuracy I should offer a slight correction. I said that we have under consideration the advisability of an amendment.


George Alexander Drew: Oh; then, we may take it that that was only a gesture which may or may not have any value, depending upon whether it has complete acceptance at a later date.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend would permit me to state my position correctly, I have not stated it as he has just stated it. I am saying that we have under consideration the advisability of introducing an amendment along the lines set out in my speech to which he referred, and that in that connection we are seeking representations from the broker dealers association represented by Mr. McTague before we make up our minds.


George Alexander Drew: One of the reasons I say that this may or may not have any meaning is that we remember it was a year ago in March that we were informed that the government had under consideration an amendment to the Criminal Code to deal with communism. We have not got any further ahead with that. The government is dismissing from its service those with communist tendencies without having any law to state that that is an offence. It is doing that in somewhat the same way that it is dealing in this case with companies and individuals under the 1,100 fraud orders that are active and outstanding at the present time.
We are told that consideration is to be given to the right to appeal, but I would point out that such right of appeal may be an empty right in the case of any business organization which is committed to a substantial overhead and is denied by an arbitrary order of this kind the opportunity to carry on its business during the time the appeal process is being carried forward and the court has the opportunity to determine if that decision should be made by the Minister of Justice. The whole business of a company might be wiped out and the real opportunity to take an effective appeal denied simply because of the delay as much as the actual cost of the appeal. It may be that the cost of the appeal would not be nearly so important as the cost of carrying unproductive

Postal Service
overhead during that period when the rights of a company or individual are being determined.
I do want to come back again to this proposition, and in this I speak in no spirit of criticism of what has passed but rather to suggest something which I believe might be given due consideration as a means of dealing with what is a real danger at this time. I am not in position to say whether any one of these people against whom orders have been made has committed fraud. In fact I do not think the Minister of Justice is in position to say that. It is not part of our tradition that the Minister of Justice should assume that authority. Nevertheless I do say that at a time when such vast opportunities for development of a speculative nature are open to the people of this country we should try to protect the risk capital that is sought for that purpose by effective laws against fraud in every case where it is found. Experience has shown that the most effective deterrent to fraud is prosecution and jail where there is real fraud.
In this country we have a division of responsibility. Under the jurisdiction over property and civil rights the provinces have set up organizations to deal with the issuing of securities. Under the exclusive jurisdiction over criminal law it is for the dominion to propose from time to time such further legislation as may be required to bring within the scope of the Criminal Code conduct of a criminal nature related to any activities where the money of the people is being sought by any device.
Undoubtedly this is a case where the combined judgment of the Department of Justice and of the securities commissioners or the corresponding officials of the provincial governments should be brought together. A great deal of useful experience has been gained over the past two decades. I feel sure that there can be a strengthening of the criminal law, on the one hand, to make it possible for the dominion government to take into consideration any cases where real fraud is found by the post office or any other department of government, and also that the Criminal Code should be strengthened in a way that would give to the securities commissioners of the provinces and their officials a greater opportunity for dealing with certain cases that now are outside provincial jurisdiction.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I presume my hon. friend is aware that the provincial securities commissions have no jurisdiction over interprovincial or international trade in securities?


George Alexander Drew: That is exactly the reason why they cannot deal with the use of mails across provincial boundaries and over international borders. That is exactly what I am pointing out, that this is a field of regulation where the dominion government has a certain opportunity for investigation and the obtaining of information and that they can then deal with it under the Criminal Code, or if there is not authority now the government can amend the code to make it wide enough to deal with cases of that kind.
I have put that suggestion forward pointing out the very thing that the Minister of Justice has mentioned, that the securities commissions can only carry out their duty under laws which are limited to the local provincial area, and it is not possible for the provincial legislature to pass laws which will deal effectively with interprovincial or international transactions. It is in that field that the Criminal Code can be strengthened by amendments and the dominion government, through information it obtains, can take the appropriate action.
One thing that raises a question is the fact that for some time officials of the securities exchange commission in the United States have been trying to have provisions included in our law to make the procedure in the United States effective in certain cases where they follow a practice not in accordance with our own. They have a device, entirely unknown to our legal system, of filing what they describe as show cause orders. Those orders are not based upon any prima facie evidence of crime; they are orders made simply upon the presentation of statements which would not be recognized under our legal system. I do not believe that a practice so out of keeping with our system should at any time become the basis of proceedings here. Succeeding ministers of justice in this country have resisted any suggestion that this should be done by amendments to our law. That is the reason why I do not want to see any indirect device used which would have the effect of doing what it has been decided should not be done. In this particular case there is no attempt to hide the fact that Mr. Callaghan of the securities exchange commission came here from Washington and made certain representations. I do not want to see an indirect procedure in Canada that will carry out a procedure followed in the United States which I hope will never be adopted here. I want to see our own Criminal Code strengthened in every way that it can be, so that we can establish the highest possible measure of confidence not only in the minds of our own people but also in the minds of possible investors in the United

States, to the end that the risk capital we require for future development may be encouraged by the assurance that there will be as little fraud as possible in the obtaining of it.
Again, however, I urge that we review most carefully procedure of this kind, and that full information should be given to the house when the estimates of the Post Office Department are before us as to the procedure taken in all these many cases, the vast majority of them not related to brokers but affecting the organizations that I have mentioned. I certainly hope that every effective device will be adopted. I not only want to make sure that no broker or other individual is improperly penalized until found guilty, but also that our laws will be such that fraud can be brought before the courts in every case where it is found.


Mr. A. H. Jeffery (London):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this occasion because I find that I am somewhat in sympathy with the constructive suggestions of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). In our democracy I think we should be most careful that the discretion exercised by officials should in some way be subject to review by the courts. I think an excellent step in this direction has been taken under the income tax law where discretionary powers are to a large extent reviewable by an appeal tribunal. I spoke once before in the house about the encouragement of risk capital. I agree with the leader of the opposition that we should do everything to encourage the use of risk capital for the development of Canada.
I noted that the leader of the opposition was worried about our democratic processes. I should like to point out that one of the things he suggested was restrictive criminal laws against what might be called a political party in Canada, the communists. On another occasion I said that I agree that anybody who threatens our state by force of arms or otherwise should be restricted and prosecuted but the leader of the opposition went on to make a suggestion about an undemocratic process with regard to communism.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interrupt but I do not want the record to be left in error. Every statement I made about communism was particularly directed towards the necessity of laws which would deal with communism before our courts. The point I was raising was that we should not deal with communism without laws, that we should have laws defining the offences and that these people should be brought before the courts.
Postal Service


Alexander Haley Jeffery: Possibly I did not word very well what I had to say. What I intended to say was that we should not have laws against communism as such. We should have laws against anybody who attempts to overcome our democratic processes by force. I should like to point out that when the leader of the opposition was premier of Ontario there were laws on the statute books of the province which broke the very rule he is talking about.
I should like to refer to the liquor control act whereby the official in charge can walk into a person's home, pick up his liquor permit and take it away without giving any reason or any review being made by the courts. I should also like to refer to another law of the province of Ontario whereby the minister of highways can take away my licence without my being convicted of any offence, without my having been through an examination. In other words, he can take my licence away because I am a Liberal or because I am white-headed, and it is not subject to review by the courts. I say again that I am in some slight agreement with the leader of the opposition but I want to point out that when he was premier of the province of Ontario he was guilty of having such laws.
There is one difficulty existing, of which I know the leader of the opposition is aware, and that is proving legally who mailed certain documents, and who is responsible for the printing thereof. Therefore prosecutions can be difficult where prospectuses are mailed. We run into difficulties of many types, and the only way they could be overcome would be by passing express legislation to the effect that such letters must be registered, that the person mailing them must sign, and other laws which will pin it down to the person mailing the documents.
In conclusion I want to say that I have considerable sympathy with the views of the leader of the opposition. I think his speech was constructive and had a good deal to offer. I want to make it clear that I have no sympathy for the Bay street mining interests. I feel that the government which I have the honour to support, in view of the action they took as to the income tax law, will do something to straighten out this difficult problem.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word on this matter because I think it is of interest to all of us. When steps are taken by a department of government, as was done in this case, without any immediate recourse to the courts to prove whether a person is innocent or guilty, I think it endangers democratic freedoms. I hold no brief for persons who use the mails or any other facility to defraud

Postal Service
either the public of Canada or citizens of the United States. So long as speculation is legitimate, people who speculate, and particularly the smaller investor, should be protected as far as possible from victimization. If our federal and provincial laws are not sufficiently strong to deal with people who have the intent to defraud, and against whom a legitimate case can be made, then I agree with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) that the laws of Canada should be strengthened. It is perfectly true, as was said by the hon. member who has just taken his seat, that under provincial and federal administrations there are a good many ways in which an individual can be penalized. It seems to me that in recent years, particularly since a number of licences and so on of different kinds have been granted, we have given to our officials a good deal of leeway in dealing with individuals.
The point was made a few moments ago that* in the province of Ontario, for instance, the driver of an automobile may have his operator's licence taken away under certain circumstances without recourse to the courts. Of course Ontario is not alone in this respect, by any means; I believe the same thing can be done in all the provinces, because legislation in regard to these matters is more or less similar throughout Canada.
It seems to me that over long periods of years we have built up the right of the individual under the law to a hearing when accused, to be adjudged innocent or guilty, and to suffer the imposition of a penalty if guilt is shown. I know, because I have been long enough in this house to remember, that some people in the United States, including the government of that country, are anxious that mails from Canada to that country shall not be used to invite investment in companies or projects more or less fraudulent in their nature. I was on the external affairs committee, for example, when we had before us an extradition treaty. I remember the long inquiry into that matter, and the forceful reasons given at that time as to why a treaty of that kind should be entered into between our two countries. At that time there were people in Canada who were using the mails in order to defraud citizens of our neighbouring country. None the less I think the committee at that time was loath indeed to do anything that might unduly restrict the right of a Canadian citizen to be protected under our own laws.
In the matter that has been brought to the attention of the house this afternoon I believe the minister would be well advised not only to give consideration to some amendments that might strengthen the law, but to

introduce amendments in the house this session in order that the law might be strengthened and the sort of criticism that has been levelled recently against the Post Office Department might not have any validity in future. I am perfectly sure that members of the house would welcome such legislation if it is necessary and desirable, but I do think we must beware lest we grant to officials of government a power over the citizens of this country which they should not possess.
The point I am trying to make is that if we are going to deal with matters of this kind, there should be a satisfactory law under which the authorities can act. As the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) said a few moments ago, a statute with fairly severe penalties for contravention of the law would be a better deterrent than merely picking up the mail or forbidding the use of the mail to an individual. The minister shakes his head; I may be wrong. Let me point out to him, however, that in denying the use of the mails there is a possibility that innocent people may have their legitimate rights restricted and be punished without any real cause.
I do not know these people whose activities are under discussion at the present time, nor am I particularly anxious to learn who they are, because here again we may find that among them are people innocent of any wrong-doing, and I would not want any name brought into the house which would be unjust to any individual who had no wrongful intent. But even some of the employees of these organizations have found it very difficult to obtain mail that perhaps they should have been able to obtain, and which may have had very little if any connection with the operations of the companies concerned. I understand that an attempt has been made to protect innocent employees, and I am glad to learn that. I do not believe the Postmaster General (Mr. Rinfret) or the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) would do knowingly anything unjust to an individual. Nor do I think the deputy postmaster general would do anything of the kind. I happen to know that gentleman, who was connected with this parliament for a long time in another capacity. But being human we are all liable to make mistakes.
I suppose the minister will have something to say on this matter before we leave it, and in all probability will reply to some of the statements and suggestions that have been made by the leader of the opposition. At the moment I must confess I do feel some apprehension lest without a statute, without a charge laid against an individual, we may do some innocent persons an injustice. I am interested in punishing anyone who may

defraud or intend to defraud, but I do believe this parliament must take cognizance of the risk involved when the sort of thing is done that is complained of here.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In view of the statement just made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well), perhaps I should say a few words on this matter. With all deference I do not think a single argument has been developed this afternoon that is not fully covered by the statements made the other day by my colleague the Acting Postmaster General (Mr. Lapointe) and myself; so that in replying I am a little afraid I may offend the rule of the house which prohibits tedious repetition.


Major James William Coldwell: We will excuse that this afternoon.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: There are one or two points which deserve to be clarified, I think. One is the statement that any action against offending stockbrokers, to take the present case, should be taken under the law. I want to make it as clear as I possibly can that the action taken in the present instance came squarely under a law passed by this parliament. It is not a new law, an innovation, but a law which has been upon the statute books of this country since 1889, and which has been invoked in case after case with beneficial results in preventing the mails from being used for the distribution of obscene literature, lottery tickets and fraudulent material. The suggestion that in what has been done there is anything outside the law, or contrary to British tradition, is quite incorrect.
The suggestion has been made this afternoon that when the Postmaster General invokes this section 7, subsection (d), of the Post Office Act, he can act arbitrarily, and if he does so he is immune from any process of the courts. Such a suggestion flows from an inaccurate conception of the law. The law, as I apprehend it, is that when a statute clothes an official with certain powers conditional upon there being a set of circumstances in relation to which those powers are to be exercised, he cannot give himself power which he does not have under the statute by arbitrarily or capriciously deciding that the set of circumstances exists, when in fact it does not. In relation to this case, therefore, and in relation to every one of those orders which have been issued, if there had been any arbitrary action on the part of the Postmaster General under which he issued an order without reasonable ground for suspecting that there was fraud, that action on his part, which in a true and a legal sense would be arbitrary, could be challenged in the courts and his order successfully attacked.
55946-161i
Postal Service
The member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker) shakes his head, but I would refer him to a decision of the British Columbia court of appeal that was cited to us by Mr. McTague when he made representations on behalf of the broker dealers association. It was pointed out in the letter to me that he-the deputy postmaster general-
-does not seem to realize that the court in that case simply held that there was a right to exercise a discretion under the statute and the discretion having been duly and properly exercised, the courts would not review it.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: What is the case?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It is the Literary Recreations case, which is to be found in 58 Canadian Criminal Cases, 385.


John George Diefenbaker: What was the nature of the application?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The nature of the application was that an order had been made upon grounds which the person offended contended to be arbitrary. An action for damages was brought against the official who made the order.


John George Diefenbaker: What was the nature of the order, if I might ask the minister?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think it was an order of the same character as the one made here.


John George Diefenbaker: Under the postal act?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think it was, but at any rate it was an order of the same statutory character, an order made by an official under statutory powers which he could exercise only if a certain set of facts existed. He found that that set of facts existed, and made the order. The persons who were affected by it brought an action against him for damages, alleging that he had acted arbitrarily and that there were no real grounds in fact for the exercise of his statutory jurisdiction.
In that case the court of appeal of British Columbia held, first of all, that where a proper set of circumstances could be shown in a case of that sort the person offended would have an action for damages, but on the facts of that case the court thought the official had exercised a reasonable discretion, and the claim was not allowed. If the Postmaster General had acted arbitrarily in any one of these cases that are under discussion, and had presumed to make an order under section 7, subsection (d), when there were no reasonable grounds for suspecting the mails were being used for fraudulent purposes, then his action, in the true sense arbitrary because it would be beyond the jurisdiction which parliament purported to

Postal Service
invest in him, could be made the subject of a case in the courts. In that way, it could be reviewed by the courts. It is not correct to say his action could not be reviewed by the court, or that it is beyond review by the court.
I do admit, Mr. Speaker, that the remedy presently available to challenge an action, if it happens to be arbitrary, is a little difficult from the legal standpoint. What is more important from the standpoint of the broker -this was clearly established in the excellent presentation the leader of the opposition made this afternoon-is that while this case was proceeding, some of the broker's business might be lost. I believe we would be presuming a great deal in this house if we were to suggest that these provisions in the Post Office Act which have been invoked with great benefit to society many times over a long period of years should be eliminated. We have been quite frank with this house in saying that the present remedy is not very satisfactory. It may cause a legal delay, and it may in that way create secondary effects upon the offending person which are out of all proportion to his deserts. The move which we have under consideration, therefore, is that of providing an appeal from the order, and not an obscure appeal or an appeal which will take a long period of time, but a summary appeal. Once an order had been made, the citizen offended could make a quick application to the courts and get the whole matter before a judge, with the power to bring in any relevant evidence which he could adduce in addition to that which the Postmaster General considered. Then the whole matter could come before the courts in such a way as to completely minimize the harm that would be done to an innocent person.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister tell me whether the case to which he referred is Caldwell v. Reilly?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, it is Literary Recreations v. Sauve. We believe that if that is done, the wise course is to retain the provision in the law, the value of which has been demonstrated in a large number of cases. As my hon. friend the leader of the opposition said, there are eleven hundred current cases in which this law has been invoked. If there had been that number of instances of arbitrary decisions, does one suppose for a moment, Mr. Speaker, that this house would not have heard about the matter long since? In the present case, involving operations on a large scale financially, does one suppose that if those brokerage firms were very badly treated some application along the lines of this B.C. case would not have been made to
the courts before now? Instead of that we have an excellent statement from Mr. McTague on behalf of the broker dealers association. We have sent back to him what we think is a constructive reply. Since then I have received a letter from Mr. McTague to the effect that, while he does not concur in much of the material in my reply because it was in rebuttal to what he had said, he is going to submit to the government in due course the brief which we suggested) he might submit. When that brief is received, we certainly intend to consider it, and unless we change the conclusions which we have tentatively reached, we will in due course bring down an amendment to provide a summary appeal from these orders.
I should like to close with one further statement. We talk about encouraging the investment of risk capital for the development of our resources, particularly our mining or oil resources. As a result of nearly thirty years' experience in the practice of law-that is, including my public life-some part of which was in connection with mining law, I do not know of a single more constructive action that this house could take than to make sure that an investor would know, no matter in what country he lives or in what part of Canada he lives, that when he put in any sum of money that he wanted to risk in the development of our resources, he was going to be treated honestly and that he was going to get a good honest run for his money. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is nothing that will deter the investment of risk capital in the development of our resources more quickly, more effectively and more permanently than the fear of investors that they are being treated fraudulently or are being cheated when they invest money in Canadian securities.



REPRINTING OF MEMBERS' SPEECHES

Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take advantage of this opportunity to air a grievance which affects not only me but a great many other members of the house as well. I refer to the regulations affecting the reprinting of members' speeches during the sessions of parliament. On July 14, 1947, the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on printing presented its second report. Concurrence in that report was moved, and the report was adopted by the house on July 15. The report contained regulations affecting the reprinting of members' speeches. As the regulations are short and to the point, I shall read them. They are as follows:
(1) That the official printing of parliament take precedence over the reprinting of such speeches as are ordered by the members individually.

(2) That in the reprinting of members' speeches the following rules be strictly adhered to:
(a)	Each reprint of a speech or speeches ordered by a member shall be an exact replica in context of the report as printed in the debates of the Senate, or the House of Commons debates, without any deletions therefrom or additions thereto;
(b)	Each reprint shall contain the speech or speeches of one member only in the same pamphlet;
(c)	Such reprints shall contain no subheadings, photographs, or illustrations, and only such subject-matter or main headings as appear in the official reports;
(d)	No special cover shall be used and no covering letters shall be added to or included in the speeches so reprinted.
The regulations in regard to the printing of speeches are clear and concise. I have not paid any attention to what other members have been doing with regard to their speeches; but any of my speeches that I have had reprinted I have sent to the king's printer with thfese regulations in mind.
In order to make doubly sure that the members would know what the regulations were, each member, I believe, received from the king's printer a card having the schedule of the printing costs on one side and the regulations that I have read on the other.
Despite this fact, it has come to my attention that the king's printer is printing speeches of members of parliament which do not adhere to these regulations. My grievance or complaint is that I am quite ready to adhere to the regulations laid down by this House of Commons, but I want every other member of the House of Commons to have to do the same thing. I object to any other member having a privilege in this house that I have not.
I have in my hand here a copy of a reprint of a speech that was made in this house by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) on March 10, when he introduced the motion for the appointment of a joint committee of both houses of parliament on old age security. It may be said that this reprint is issued by the Department of National Health and Welfare. But on the face of it -it is clear that such is not the case. There is on the cover-a white cover of much better quality paper than the ordinary Hansard paper-a heading: "Canada Reviews Old Age Security, by Hon. Paul Martin, Minister of National Health and Welfare." I do not know whether the Minister of National Health and Welfare reviewing old age security is the same thing as Canada reviewing old age security. At the bottom of the cover appear these words: "Address delivered in the House of Commons, Ottawa, Friday, March 10, 1950." This is clearly a speech by a member of parliament and reprinted for circulation in his constituency
Reprints of Members' Speeches or wherever else he may wish to circulate it. This reprint contravenes the regulations in a number of instances. Let us take, for instance, 2 (c) which reads:
Such reprints shall contain no subheadings, photographs, or illustrations, and only such subject-matter or main headings as appear in the official report.
I have counted the number of subheadings in this reprint and they amount to ten.
I also made a speech in that debate, and I think it was a fairly good speech. That, however, is only a personal opinion and I may be biased. However, the reprint appears just as it appears on Hansard, in the daily copy, without any breakings of subheadings at all.


Major James William Coldwell: And the printing is different.


Angus MacInnis: Oh yes, the printing is different, of course. I am not complaining particularly about that, although I should like to have the same large print and the same good quality paper that the Minister of National Health and Welfare, or whoever paid for this, can afford. I always pay for my own; and I am willing to pay for what I ask for and for what I get. The point I wish to make is this. When this reprint of the Minister of National Health and Welfare's speech reaches his constituents, they have a fairly presentable piece of literature which is fairly easy to read. When my speech reaches the people of Vancouver East it is an altogether different looking piece of literature. 1 maintain that not only is this a discrimination against me as a member of parliament and against other members of parliament who adhere to the regulations; it is also a discrimination against our constituents as well.
The next time I decide to get reprints of a speech I make in the house I am going to put in subheadings; I am going to take it to the king's printer and then, if I am refused permission to have it printed in that way, both the king's printer and the House of Commons are going to hear more about it-unless in the meantime these regulations are rescinded or each member of the house is treated on the same basis.
There is nothing so undesirable and dangerous to a democracy as that the leaders in government and other leaders in public life should ask for and receive special concessions that the ordinary rank and file do not receive. In so far as that sort of thing obtains in our society, just so far is our society not democratic. Equality of rights and equality of privileges are essential in any democracy. I would ask some member of the government to give the assurance that each member of the House of Commons, from the

Reprints of Members' Speeches Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to the most humble backbencher-if there is one more humble than the other-will be assured that in all matters pertaining to the house and to the regulations made for our conduct in the house and in relation to matters connected with the house, shall have the same privileges as any other.
I would ask some member of the government to indicate, if he knows, how far the king's printer has been allowing or conniving in contravention of the regulations made here some three years ago in regard to the reprints of members' speeches.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just taken his seat has said that speeches by different ministers of the crown have been-


Angus MacInnis: I mentioned only one.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Just one, yes-reprinted and distributed. I have here statements and speeches from the information division of the Department of External Affairs. The publication I have before me is dated April 29, 1950; how many more there are, I do not know. This one is six pages in length, and purports to contain a speech delivered before the Reform Club of Montreal.
My view is that if speeches of the different ministers given before political clubs throughout the country are going to be mimeographed or printed and sent out, other people should have the same privilege. However, my personal view is that the taxpayers' money was not taken from them for that purpose, and I strongly object to speeches of ministers being printed in full, or almost in full, and then being sent out in that way.
Here is another issue containing a speech delivered by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) in Hamilton.


Mr. Casselman:: Before the by-election.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes, April 24, before the by-eleotion. This speech, eight pages in length, was delivered before the Hamilton chamber of commerce. Here is another one eight pages long delivered on March 27 in Toronto by the Prime Minister.


Arza Clair Casselman: Another by-election.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes, another by-election.


Mr. James:: Did you read it?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes, I read it.


John Mason James: Did you learn anything.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Even if we did learn something from it, I do not think that is the kind of political stuff that should be handed out. It is paid for by the taxpayers, despite the fact that taxes are sky-high at the present time. No wonder we cannot get them down.


John Mason James: And the opposition is asking that more be spent.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The opposition has never at any time asked that any more be spent on publicity of this kind. We have never suggested wasting the taxpayers' money. We have always tried to see that the taxpayer was given a fair deal-and he certainly is not getting a fair deal with the government in office at the present time.
The last weekly review issued by the Department of External Affairs quotes a speech by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), and also some smaller items concerning the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Then on the very back sheet in a small -square we find this: "Mr. Drew's motion defeated." It praises all the others, and then in one smpll item it tries to belittle somebody else.
All this is uncalled for. I do not think these publications are necessary, even if they are sent out to embassies in other parts of the world. I do not think that is what the taxpayer wants. It is not helping the country in any way, and all it is doing is to build up a big Liberal political machine at the expense of the taxpayer. I certainly object, and I know many taxpayers across this country who object with me. I have on file many letters dealing with the subject.
Not only these, but many other items and speeches by ministers of the crown are printed at the expense of the taxpayers, or sent out in mimeographed form. It is high time things of that kind were stopped.



SUBSIDIES-COST OF LIVING-DISCOURAGEMENT OF PRODUCTION

Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice the grievance that His Majesty's government is neglecting to employ adequately the device of subsidies in Canada's economy. There are four major evils the effects of which are placing an onerous weight upon the people in the federal riding of Lethbridge and the other people of Alberta.
In the first place we have the evil of the excessively high cost of living. I do not know when something is going to be done to stop this upward trend in the cost of living. It is beginning to be a very serious matter, and people are wondering how they are going to live. Then we have strikes which bring prices up still more. Great numbers of people are completely helpless in the grip of this situation. The wise use of subsidies in 1946 would have prevented that sort of thing. If there is going to be any remedy provided today it must take the form of some measure of subsidy.

The second evil which is resulting from this government policy is the discouragement of producers because of the uncertainty of prices and markets. Within the last two years we have seen the discouragement of the production of such commodities as hogs, poultry, dairy products and beef. Someone will say that surely there should be no discouragement of the production of beef with prices so high at the present time; but the fact is that many people in my constituency are fearful of going into the production of beef because they fear that prices will collapse. There is only one way whereby we can guarantee stability of prices and stability of cost of production so as to assure the producer that he will have a chance of making good in production, and that is by the wise use of subsidies.
The third evil which is weighing upon my constituents and upon my province is the result of strikes which come from these high costs of living. These strikes force up prices. Nowadays strikes are never allowed to materialize when they can possibly be prevented, but prices are raised nevertheless. The consumer is paying for these strikes. Prices are rising and thereby indirectly affecting the welfare of the producer. Something must be done and done soon.
The fourth evil is of such a nature that by reason of that evil, in the first place, the ordinary consumers are penalized for living in Alberta; in the second place, Alberta's primary producers are inequitably handicapped as compared with the producers in other provinces in the dominion; in the third place, the ordinary economic development within Alberta is impeded more than is the case in any other province; in the fourth place, interprovincial trade between Alberta and British Columbia is hampered most inequitably as compared with what obtains throughout the rest of Canada; and, in the fifth place, a tariff wall in effect has been erected against Alberta in reference to the other provinces of Canada.
Those five ills may appear difficult to prove, but if I had the opportunity and time, which probably I have not today, I could support each of those charges to the complete satisfaction of everyone in the house and in the country.
Let all discrimination as between the central provinces and the maritimes and the western provinces be removed in respect of this fourth evil which results from the failure to use subsidies. Then let subsidies be employed to bring about an equitable and stable freight rate structure throughout Canada. The
Cost of Living
fourth evil which I have been discussing results from the failure to use subsidies to overcome inequitable freight rates.
These freight rates have already been the cause of the most grievous disadvantage to people in the west and the maritimes. We have seen three increases in freight rates and we are now faced with a tremendous effort to raise freight rates again. All of these raises are in addition to the inequitable structure which obtained in the first place. We are threatened with strikes for increased wages which the railroads tell us will increase their costs to such an extent that freight rates will have to be raised again. Where on earth is this thing going to end?
The time has come when something should be done about this matter. It may possibly be that the railroads are not getting enough revenue. If that is the case there is no reason why more than a fair share should be taken out of the four western provinces. The time has come when something should be done to arrive at an equitable and reasonable freight rate structure to be charged all over the Dominion of Canada on a similar per ton mile basis. As matters are now, we are continuing in a chaotic manner and it would appear that nothing the provinces are able to do will change this.
I suggest that if the railroads simply must have additional revenue then they should be given that revenue by means of subsidies toward which everyone in Canada would contribute. As matters are at the present time the inequalities which make up the fourth evil I have been discussing, freight rates, now bear heavily upon the province of Alberta, and that province is not the only province in the west that is suffering.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
111. Departmental administration, $418,340.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
133. Departmental administration, $270,421.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 133, respecting national defence.

National Defence
He said: Mr. Speaker, when the resolution preceding this bill was before the house on April 18 and when the bill was given first reading I stated the objectives of the bill, as reported on page 1681 of Hansard. I stated at that time that the bill had been dealt with in the other place where it was introduced at the last session of parliament and where it received third reading on December 8 of last year. However, the prorogation of parliament prevented our proceeding with the measure in this place and consequently it was necessary to introduce it here. That was done by a resolution which was pult on the order paper on February 21, and, as I have said, first reading of the bill was given on April 18.
When the measure was before the Senate and during the debate on the defence estimates last session I indicated that it was the intention of the government, 'if the bill received second reading, to refer the bill to a special committee of -the house to be set up, if that was the wish of the house. Accordingly notice has been given in Votes and Proceedings of May 12 of the intention to set up such a special committee. If this bill receives second reading it will be the intention of the government to send it to that committee.
It is also our hope that Bill No. 134, to amend the Militia Pension Act and change the title thereof, will receive second reading when it will be referred to the same committee. Finally there is a third measure in the form of a resolution which deals with prize money. If that resolution is adopted and the bill to be based on it given second reading it will be our intention likewise to refer that bill to the proposed committee for consideration. Therefore the committee, if the motion is adopted, will have to deal with all three bills relative to defence.
. 1 do not wish to delay the house further in its consideration of this measure beyond making a few remarks to outline the history of this type of legislation. The first Militia Act of Canada was passed in 1868, the year after confederation, as chapter 40 of the statutes of that year. The act has been revised on a number of occasions but there has been very little substantial change. The present Militia Act is chapter 132 of the revised statutes of 1927. The antiquity of the measure may be appreciated when I recall that, until the passage of an amendment that I introduced in 1947, the Militia Act referred to pack animals but made no mention of aircraft. The Militia Act in its present form does not contain a code of discipline for the Canadian army but by reference incorporates into Canadian law the Army Act of the United Kingdom.

Turning to the legislation relative to the navy, the first Naval Service Act was passed in 1910 as chapter 43 of the statutes of that year. It remained in substantially the same form in which it was passed until 1944 when, by chapter 23 of the statutes of that year, a completely new act was passed. That statute introduced a Canadian naval disciplinary code. This was the first Canadian code to apply to one of the three armed services, and it has been used as the basis for drafting many of the provisions of the present bill.
The first legislation dealing specifically with the air force was the Air Board Act of 1919, later known as the Aeronautics Act. This act dealt with both civil and military aviation. The expanded activities of the Royal Canadian Air Force in the late war resulted in the enactment of the Royal Canadian Air Force Act in 1940. Unlike the Naval Service Act, but following the precedent of the Militia Act, this act contained no disciplinary code. As in the case of the Canadian army, discipline in the air force is governed by the Air Force Act of the United Kingdom which was made a part of air force law by incorporation.
Under the Militia Act, the Naval Service Act and the Air Board Act each of the Canadian forces was administered separately. The department of militia and defence dealt with the army, the department of naval service with the navy, and the air board with the air force. In 1922 the Department of National Defence Act was passed creating a new department to deal with the three services. This act was chapter 34 of the statutes of 1922, and came into force by proclamation on January 1, 1923. The Department of National Defence Act has been amended on four different occasions. The principal amendment, made in 1940, provided for the appointment of additional ministers of national defence.
Experience gained during the last war showed clearly the need for more unified control and greater uniformity in the three services. Further, the present position and status of Canada make it undesirable to depend for the discipline of our army and air force upon legislation enacted by a legislative body not responsible to the people of Canada. Accordingly, soon after becoming minister I directed that work be commenced on the preparation of a single all-embracing Canadian statute to include a common disciplinary code applicable to all three services.
I have previously partially explained to hon. members the course we followed in drafting the measure. It has been in the course of preparation now for some three



IS, 1950

[Stage Direction]
years, and it is the product of the work in the first instance of officers representing the three services working under the judge advocate general. In this connection I should like to pay tribute to the judge advocate general, Brigadier R. J. Orde, for his service which was completed with his retirement from the armed forces this very week after thirty-two years in the judge advocate general's branch and thirty-seven years' service in all. During his service he has had an unusual series of responsibilities in connection with legal matters relative to the acts to which I have referred, the Militia Pension Act, the bringing about of a state of war in Canada, the mobilization of the Canadian armed forces, the demobilization of the forces, and many other measures of great importance and complexity. In all these duties he has rendered the most loyal service, and in a very real sense the bill now before us is a lasting monument to his own achievement and work.
It will be found that the bill has 251 sections. It incorporates in its terms legislation which comprised over 600 different sections. Therefore it is not only a consolidation, of existing legislation but also a considerable simplification thereof. It is intended in the bill to give effect to the experience of the Canadian armed forces during the two world wars. We have also taken into account the experience of the United Kingdom where a committee was set up under Mr. Justice Lewis which has made a most important report to the government. We have also taken into account the experience of the United States where a committee appointed by my friend, the late Hon. James Forrestal, reported to the secretary of defence and as a result led to legislation which in many ways is parallel to that now before this house.
The importance of the legislation can hardly be overemphasized. Not only will it provide for the administration of the Department of National Defence, the discipline of the armed forces, the work of the defence research board and many other matters but in view of the increased and increasing importance of defence, as I believe hon. members will recognize, there is a real urgency that we should have streamlined legislation to regulate these important matters. Of course at the present time the legislation affects the 48,000 odd officers and men in the active forces, the 49,000 in the reserves, and to a considerable degree the 24,000 civilians working in the Department of National Defence, a total population of something like 120,000. In the event of war its importance can be appreciated when hon. members recall that we had in the armed forces of Canada in the last war no less than 1,200,000 men and women who,
National Defence
during their periods of service, were all governed by the provisions of legislation which the bill will now replace.
As I said to hon. members, the legislation received the most serious and painstaking consideration by a committee in the other place. In consequence a considerable number of amendments, largely of a technical character or affecting the wording, were made. The bill now before the house includes all these amendments without any alterations, but in addition it contains certain sections which were not considered in the other place because we were advised they dealt with money matters. They are sections 10; 11; 12(4); 36; 53(3), (4) and (5); 54(a) and (d); 55; 190(9); 208 and 227. We were advised that those clauses dealt with money matters, with which the other place did not deal, so they are coming before this house for the first time. The bill also has a number of minor technical changes made on the advice of the law officers of the Department of National Defence and of the Department of Justice since the measure passed the other place.
The result of all this work is now before the house. As I believe I indicated previously, this is the eleventh complete draft. I have been through the drafts five times myself, and it has received the consideration of senior officers of the armed forces, of the chiefs of staff committee, of a special committee of the cabinet, the cabinet defence committee, and of the cabinet itself on a number of occasions. It has also been subjected to critical examination by officers who had previous experience in the armed forces of Canada. Despite all the work that has gone into it, however, we do not suggest for a moment that the bill is perfect. It is an exceedingly difficult, complex and comprehensive piece of legislation. We have made it as simple and plain as we can, but certainly it can be improved. We hope the house will adopt the suggestion I have made and refer it to a committee consisting largely of men having service experience in one or other or both wars, who will then receive the views of the legal advisers and any relevant service personnel; and I have no doubt they will be able to make a number of improvements. We want the best possible act, and we invite the co-operation of every hon. member of this house, as well as those in the other place, in the interests of greater justice for the services, greater efficiency for the department, and more security for Canada.
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated when this legislation was in the resolution stage on April 18, members on this side will be pleased to co-operate with the government in facilitating its passage.

National Defence
I repeat now that we will give our most wholehearted co-operation in trying to help the minister produce the very best possible legislation to meet the circumstances. When we were at the resolution stage I did suggest that since the hour was late when that discussion took place, we should be given the opportunity to have a full discussion, if that were required, on the motion for second reading, and to that suggestion the minister gave his consent.
Before making some reference to the bill itself I should like to join the minister in extending my congratulations, and perhaps to a certain extent my sympathy, to the judge advocate general who is retiring this week after so many years of service. I know that when one has spent the greater part of a lifetime in the service it comes as a bit of a wrench to enter different fields in civilian life. I do not know whether the judge advocate general has any intention of following in my footsteps and perhaps entering public life in any sphere, but I am sure all hon. members will wish him every success and all happiness.
As -the minister said, to a large extent this legislation is a consolidation of various existing acts. It is designed to bring about unification between the services, unification in the administration of the services, and also to establish a distinctly Canadian code of discipline which as far as practical may be uniform in the different services. As the minister has pointed out, at the present time the three services are administered under separate acts, the Militia Act of 1927, the Naval Service Act of 1944, and the Royal Canadian Air Force Act of 1940. I do appreciate the tremendous task with which those who drew up this bill were faced in order to bring together all -that legislation into one measure.
This bill has been divided into thirteen parts, but generally speaking it consists of three divisions. The first deals with organization, the second with the code of service discipline, and -the third with general provisions such as aid to the civil power. A few moments ago the minister indicated that the bill contains some 251 clauses, which replace more than 600 clauses in these other acts. When this bill is sent -to committee I do hope it will be appreciated that there may be sins of omission as well as sins of commission, and that after compressing so many sections into a comparatively limited number of clauses it is possible that something may have been left out. So I hope the committee will be permitted to consider the sections of the previous acts that have been left out, and not have its activity and discussion confined to

the limited number of clauses in this bill. Before this bill is sent to committee I hope the minister will give us that assurance.
In dealing with the first -part, covering organization, in the very beginning one comes across a clause which was in the old Militia Act but which, as far as I can see, is not in this new bill. I refer to section 4 of the Militia Act, which provides that the command in chief of the Canadian army is declared to continue and be vested in the king and shall be exercised and administered by His Majesty or by the governor general as his representative. I must confess to some surprise at finding this clause left out of -the present bill. Oh, I know no one would expect His Majesty to take command of a cruiser, or to appear on parade and give an order to a troop of cavalry, -but all -soldiers, sailors and airmen are king's men, and they have valued the fact that His Majesty is -their commander in chief.


Brooke Claxton: I quite agree. It was omitted because it is in section 15 of the British North America Act already, and we did riot think we should repeat the same provision in this act.


George Randolph Pearkes: Those things could be
explained no doubt in committee, and that is why I am requesting that where these sections have been omitted we might have an opportunity of asking about them, and not be confined rigidly to the sections in this bill. I give that as a example of a section which has been omitted, and the reason for omitting it is not readily apparent to everybody.
There may also be a good reason for omitting section 8 of the old Militia Act, under which there was a definition of the obligation of service of the citizens of Canada. I know it is out of date because it refers to levy en masse, to enrolment by ballot, and so forth, but I am not sure it is wise to remove from this new act the obligation of service on the part of Canadians. It is quite obvious the obligation is recognized, because when the Secretary of State sends out letters of congratulation to new Canadians who have taken out their naturalization papers, he mentions the fact that one of the obligations is that of service in time of necessity. I shall quote from a letter which he sent to a Chinese resident of British Columbia, and I think it is a form letter. After extending congratulations upon receiving Canadian citizenship he says:	[DOT]
Your citizenship carries with it the obligation of defending your adopted country in time of need.
Perhaps that is another example of a place where an opportunity should be given to the committee to ascertain the reasons for the elimination of clauses pointing out to the

citizens of Canada that they do have some obligations towards the defence of their country.
In the division dealing with the organization of the army, I think there is a distinct change in the definition of the responsibilities placed on the chief of the general staff. In the past it was the responsibility of the chief of the general staff to co-ordinate the other branches of the staff, the adjutant general's branch, the quartermaster general's branch, and the master general of ordnance branch, but from what study I have given to this Bill No. 133 it would seem that the chief of the general staff is now to assume more the role of a chief of staff than of the coordinator of all branches of the staff.
Coming to the second division, the code of discipline has been made to apply to the servicemen of the three services. It is unnecessary to point out that a man in the service is also subject to civil law. Apparently the framers of Bill No. 133 have had considerable difficulty in adjusting the various codes of discipline of the three services, and unification of this division has not been as easy as perhaps it was hoped it would be. One notices that there are several sections which are applicable to naval personnel only. There is a general trend throughout this division to increase the powers of a commanding officer in summary trials. I imagine that has been done in order to conform with the disciplinary powers of a captain on a ship. I am not sure that on land it is either necessary or desirable to increase the summary powers of the commanding officer. It may be argued, however, that that will reduce the number of courts martial which have been held in the past.
I know quite well that during the early part of the last war a large number of courts martial were held. I am inclined to think that was more because the commanding officers did not apply the powers that they had, and I doubt very much whether it is necessary to increase those powers. I hope there will be no trend to increase the severity of military punishments, because over a number of years, 150 years and more, there has been a gradual tendency towards reducing the severity of military punishments which, first of all, were administered under the Mutiny Act, and then under the articles of war. It is less than 150 years ago that corporal punishment was abolished. Since then, step by step, the severity of military punishments has been reduced. One step was the introduction of detention as a substitute for imprisonment in the case of a purely military offence. Then there was a reduction in the
National Defence
number of military offences which were punishable by death, and there was also a modification of field punishment.
One group of clauses in this act which I think will be welcomed are those which provide an opportunity of appeal from the ruling of courts martial. I am not sure that we could not have gone much further in that respect than has been done in Bill No. 133. The appeals from decisions of courts martial will be referred to a special board composed of judges and non-service personnel. Many crimes which are of a military nature are also crimes which are dealt with in civilian life by the ordinary courts of law. I am not certain that it might not have been desirable to have restricted the number of military crimes, so that there would have been only those crimes which are essentially of a military nature to be dealt with by courts martial. Service personnel could be sent to the civilian courts during peacetime in preference to courts martial. The members of a court martial are not always well versed in the law. They are not twelve good men and true drawn from the same status of life as the serviceman who appears as the prisoner.


Mr. Slick:: They are usually fair-minded,
though.


George Randolph Pearkes: That is a debatable point, as to whether they are usually fair-minded, because they are always appointed by a senior authority. I have known cases in which instructions have been sent out to officers who might 'be sitting on courts martial in the near future, that their opportunities for promotion would be judged largely by their manner in insisting upon discipline and not showing any weakness in awarding punishment. I know it is a legend that a court martial is the fairest court of all; but there is grave doubt in my mind as to whether that is actually the case.
We now come to the last and final division, that of general provisions dealing with aid to the civil power and so forth. During the last few weeks we have been faced with an emergency in which the armed forces of the country have been playing a splendid part in helping the civilian authorities. A few years ago there were the floods in the Fraser valley. Today there are the floods in the Red river valley. Last week there were serious fires at Rimouski and other places. I wonder whether the sections dealing with aid to the civilian power should not now be made more all-embracing so that instead of dealing only with questions of riot, they might also deal with the allocation of authority in cases of fire and flood.

Private Bills
As the minister has said, there are not a great many of the provisions in this bill which are of a highly controversial nature. I should like to offer my congratulations to the framers of the bill. As I said previously, there will be every desire on the part of members from this party who will be serving on the committee to help facilitate the work. We appreciate the statement made by the minister that he will welcome our suggestions and our co-operation to try to improve the existing bill. Because of the fact that a number of sections of the previous bill have been eliminated, and also because of the financial implications to which the minister has already referred, I hope that reasonably wide latitude will be given to the committee to make a thorough investigation into all the ramifications of this bill.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. J. H. Dickey (Halifax) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 205, to incorporate United Security Insurance Company.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.

Mr. Paul E. Cote (Verdun-La Salle) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 206, to incorporate the Apostolic Trustees of the Friars Minor or Franciscans.


John Horne Blackmore: Would the sponsor give an explanation of the bill?


Mr. Cole (Verdun-La Salle):: Mr. Speaker, as may be read in the preamble to the bill, the Franciscan order is a religious order under the constitution and rules whereof the members collectively and individually have precluded themselves from owning and administering any real or personal properties. It has been in their tradition during the seven hundred years of their existence to have the administration of any of their material interests made by bodies of trustees appointed under their apostolic rules and constitutions. Since being established in Canada they have been regulated in their temporal administrations by an act of the legislature of the province of Quebec in 1893, which

was amended in 1899 and again, I believe, in 1936. However, as the order developed and established other institutions in other provinces this incorporation became inadequate.
The purpose of the bill is to raise on the national level the powers which the petitioners herein have enjoyed under the provincial statute of Quebec to which I have just referred. The powers sought are the usual powers accorded by parliament in incorporations of a similar nature.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

Mr. W. A. Robinson (Simcoe East) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 207, to incorporate the Canadian Commerce Insurance Company.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


William Alfred Robinson: This is the usual type of application for incorporation of an insurance company intending to engage in fire, automobile and other types of insurance as indicated in section 6 of the bill which, I believe, has already been distributed. I believe the bill is in the usual form followed in such bills and contains only those sections pertinent to bills of this kind.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.

Mr. E. A. McCusker (Regina City) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 208, to incorporate Saskatchewan Mutual Insurance Company.


Mr. Graydon:: I understand the sponsor of the bill is very anxious to give a full explanation, and I suggest he should be given the opportunity.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: I can assure hon. members I am not anxious to speak in the house more often than is necessary. However, if the house wishes an explanation I might say that this is the usual type of bill to incorporate companies of this kind. If hon. members would like to have a more detailed explanation, I shall be pleased to give it. Otherwise I would ask them to accept it as the usual bill of its kind.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.

Industrial Relations


Mr. J. W. Noseworlhy (York South) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 10, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (reinstatement and compensation).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment proposes to add a new section to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act in the following words:
The board shall have power to make an order requiring an employer to reinstate any employee discharged contrary to the provisions of this act and to pay such employee the monetary loss suffered by reason of such discharge.
The purpose of the amendment, as indicated, is to give power to the board to make an order requiring an employer to reinstate any employee discharged contrary to the provisions of the act, and to pay such employee or employees the monetary loss sustained.
The reason for introducing this amendment with the approval and at the request of the trade union movement, and with the approval of the heads of the two labour congresses, has arisen from certain cases which have developed in Ontario, where their industrial disputes investigation legislation was modelled along the lines of the federal act.
Let me give one example to illustrate the cases which have arisen and have been brought before the courts in Ontario. On July 29, 1948, the consent of the Ontario labour relations board was obtained in respect of a prosecution for the offence of refusing or failing to comply with an order of the minister of labour, by refusing to reinstate the named employees in the employment of the firm. The charge was brought to the court and heard before a magistrate. The magistrate found that the men had been fired and referred to the order that they were to be taken back and said that the company had done nothing to take them back. The magistrate went on to point out that under the act he could do nothing but pronounce a conviction and impose a penalty, and in that ease the penalty was fixed at $3,120. The company appealed to the county court and the county court judge upheld the conviction and the fine, but found himself unable to give an order reinstating the men who had been fired or granting compensation. The county court judgment was given on September 7, 1949, and up to this day the company has refused to take back the employees or to compensate them. Apparently there is no authority under the act whereby a court or the board can make such an order. It is to give the board the authority to order the reinstatement of
men fired under those circumstances and to compensate them that this amendment is introduced.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: Was an action taken to obtain compensation for the wrong that has been done?


Joseph William Noseworthy: The case was brought before the Ontario labour relations board in the first instance, which board issued an order that the men should be taken back. The company refused to take back the men and the case went to the magistrate's court where a conviction was given and a fine imposed. The magistrate declared that there was no authority under the act to issue an order for the reinstatement of the men. The case was then appealed to the county court.


Mr. Mitchell:: Can my hon. friend give me the name of the company?


Joseph William Noseworthy: The case was brought by the International Woodworkers of America against Canada Cabinets and Furniture Limited of Kitchener.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I can quite understand the magistrate saying that he had no right to award damages although the company was liable to a fine under some punitive section, but has any action been taken by these men for wrongful dismissal? Surely a dismissal against the provisions of the act must be wrongful.


Joseph William Noseworthy: The only suggestion made to the employees was that they should bring a civil action against the company but apparently there were difficulties that rendered that practically impossible. While that is under consideration, the action has not been taken as yet.


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I should speak now but there are one or two fundamentals in connection with this legislation that perhaps should be referred to. We are now dealing with legislation which was passed by this parliament, not by any province. I have always taken the position that the labour relations board is not a judicial body. In a court action there would be a judge with some knowledge of the law and perhaps a jury composed of people like my hon. friend.
My experience in the administration of this legislation has been that it should be based on conciliation instead of having recourse to the courts. That is why in the dominion field the minister is given authority to appoint industrial disputes inquiry commissioners to look into breaches of the act. As I say, my approach to labour problems in the federal field has been based on conciliation rather

Industrial Relations
than the courts. During the war I had jurisdiction in labour relations in all the provinces and I found that conciliation was much more effective in establishing the rights of employees, and employers as well, in connection with labour relations.
As I have said before in committee and in this house, if it is thought that someone other than the minister should make the decision whether action should be taken by the employer, or the employee, I am quite prepared to accept that decision. I have been an industrial disputes inquiry commissioner and I have been up against difficult situations which were brought about, sometimes by one side, sometimes by the other, and sometimes by both sides. At times these matters are difficult to adjudicate upon.
Let me say that the angels are not all on one side. Even among the twelve apostles there were a couple of deadbeats. Without wanting to criticize .this bill, may I say to my hon. friend that it hinges upon the bill introduced by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) being passed. If that bill does not pass, this bill falls by the wayside because of the very nature of things. I have not read the judgment referred to by the hon. member, but I should like to read it.
1	should like to read to the house subsection
2	of section 40 of the act, which reads as follows:
Where an employer is convicted for violation of paragraph (a) of subsection two of section four of this act by reason of his having suspended, transferred, laid off or discharged an employee contrary to this act, the convicting court, judge or magistrate, in addition to any other penalty authorized by this act, may order the employer to pay compensation for loss of employment to the employee not exceeding such sum as in the opinion of the court, judge or magistrate, as the case may be, is equivalent to the wages, salary or other remuneration that would have accrued to the employee up to the date of conviction but for such suspension, transfer, lay-off or discharge, and may order the employer to reinstate the employee in his employ at such date as in the opinion of the court, judge or magistrate is just and proper in the circumstances in the position which the employee would have held but for such suspension, transfer, lay-off or discharge.
Then it continues with the penalties which I am not going to read. I do not know whether they recently made some amendments to the Ontario act. Because I have been away for a short time I am not as well versed as perhaps I should be in what took place while that act was under discussion. To me there is sufficient weight of language in the section I read from the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, an act not passed by the government but passed by parliament and unanimously agreed to by all parties in the house. As I say, in my

experience in the administration of this legislation I have not run across any difficulty of the kind that my hon. friend has mentioned this evening.
I say in all sincerity that I have very fixed opinions on bureaucracy and the rights of individuals under the rule of law and habeas corpus, and it will take more than a member of the House of Commons to change my opinion. I do not think there is any substitute for the rule of law or habeas corpus. They are guarantees to my hon. friend, myself and every other hon. member of the house of the freedom that we have enjoyed since the days of Magna Carta. In these troublesome times that means something to me. There are countries behind the iron curtain where that is not the case.


Gordon Graydon: Another Blackstone.


Humphrey Mitchell: I may tell the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) that I am not a lawyer. I am just an ordinary workingman.


Gordon Graydon: I was paying you a compliment.


Humphrey Mitchell: I agree with you as to the compliment. You do not need to be a lawyer to have a measure of common sense.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Humphrey Mitchell: I say that to my good medical friends, my good farmer friends, my good working-class friends and my good school teacher friend who introduced the bill, and who was born in the province of Newfoundland.


Gordon Graydon: You do not have to be a cabinet minister though.


Humphrey Mitchell: Well, you will find out. I hope you will not do so in my lifetime but you may find out that this is a pretty lonely place to sit in. It is the end of the road, the place where you have to say yes or no.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I am glad you know it.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think I should know it. In my place you cannot preach economy on the hustings and then ask the House of Commons to spend $7 billion a year in additional expenses. I hope my hon. friend from Peel will never live to see the day when he has that responsibility because we are going to be in power for a long time yet notwithstanding the by-election in Hamilton yesterday. Some years ago I read a book which I think is a classic. It is easy to read because it is written in ordinary common language. It was written by Lord Hewart and is called "The New Despotism". I should

like to read an excerpt which I think is fundamental and elementary. At pages 21 to 24 he deals with the rule of law and he says:
But the supremacy of law, as we know it, means something more than the exclusion of arbitrary power, and something more also than the equality of all citizens before the ordinary law of the land administered by the ordinary courts. It means that in this country-
He is speaking of Great Britain and I speak of Canada.
-unlike some foreign countries,-
There are very few people in this country who would like to ape them, I am glad to say. Recently we had a minister of my faith here. If he wants to start a revolution my advice to him is to go back to Canterbury from where he comes and start a revolution there. I want to say to this ecclesiastical gentleman, if you can place him in that category, that he has not done any credit to the land of his birth because, irrespective of what government has been in power there, they have always had a deeper regard for freedom in its truest sense than his conception of freedom. I know something about these Cook's tours to Russia where they do not get any farther than the Kremlin and eat off the gold plates that the czars had in the old days. They think they have seen the country.


An hon. Member:: Were you there?


Humphrey Mitchell: My 'hon. friend asks whether I was there. Yes, I was there. I think a man's duty is to the institutions under which he lives; and, if I may say so to my Conservative friends, there are fewer communists in Canada today than at any time since I have been in the country. I should like to give some very simple advice. Let the communists advertise themselves. Do not advertise their cause for them. I grew up with one of their leaders in this country. I never mention the names of these people in public. Until he was put in the penitentiary he was unknown. My good friend the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) knows the gentleman I am talking about, and I use the term advisedly. Let the sun shine in. The best cure for communism in this or any other country is the right to express an opinion notwithstanding the fact that ninety-nine and nine-tenths of the people disagree with your opinion. I think the British people have proven that.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am sure you never got that bad.


Humphrey Mitchell: I may say to the hon, member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) that I believe
Industrial Relations
this sincerely and I have had some experience with these individuals. We used to handle them in a different way in Hamilton when I was younger.


Gordon Graydon: They are still handling them there.


Humphrey Mitchell: We handled them in a different way.


An hon. Member:: They took care of you there yesterday.


Humphrey Mitchell: They took care of my hon. friend in that city.


Gordon Graydon: Your friend, too.


Humphrey Mitchell: Hewart's book continues:
Under the contrasted system, where the constitution is written out in declarations or definitions or rights, the rights of the individual may be said to be deductions drawn from the principles of the constitution. The contrast is vital and is to be traced to profound differences of history, of temperament, and of outlook. This is not the place for any comparison of the respective merits and advantages of the two systems. But it may at least be observed that, under the system which we know, it is far more difficult for constitutional rights to be suspended or taken away.
To summarize the matter, it may be said that the "rule of law" comprehends and denotes the following principles:
1.	No one can lawfully be restrained or punished, or condemned in damages except for a violation of the law established to the satisfaction of a judge or jury or magistrate in proceedings regularly instituted in one of the ordinary courts of justice. The rights of personal liberty and of freedom of speech, the liberty of the press-
While I am referring to the liberty of the press, I heard a great deal said about the press the other evening. The press has said some hard things about me but I have never objected. I am still a member of the House of Commons.
The rights of personal liberty and of freedom of speech, the liberty of the press, and the right of public meeting, are all a result of the application of this fundamental principle.
2.	Everyone, whatever his position, minister of state or government official, soldier or policeman, is governed by the ordinary law of the land and personally liable for anything done by him contrary to that law, and is subject to the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts of justice, civil and criminal.
The plea of "act of state" is not permissible as a defence to an action in respect of anything done within the realm, or to any action by a British subject. It is confined to proceedings commenced by foreigners in respect of duly authorized acts done by officers or servants of the crown abroad.
The crown-that is to say, the government-cannot itself be proceeded against, either by petition of right or otherwise, for any alleged wrong on the part of its servants. The remedy for any such wrong is against the individual wrongdoer. But in practice the crown as a general rule pays any damages that may be recovered against its servants for wrongful acts committed in the course of their public employment.

Industrial Relations
3.	No one who is charged with a violation of the law can effectively plead, either in a civil or in a criminal court, that his act was done in obedience to the command of a superior, even the command of the king himself. The maxim "The king can do no wrong" imports not only that the king cannot be proceeded against for any alleged wrong, but also that he cannot authorize any wrongful act so as to justify the wrongdoer.
The right of personal liberty is the right not to be arrested or detained or otherwise subjected to physical restraint except in accordance with the law. And to speak generally, that is to say, except in the case of persons who are not sui juris, or persons subject to military law, the law recognizes an arrest or any sort .of physical restraint as justifiable only where the person restrained is suspected of having committed a crime and is arrested in order that he may be brought before the court for trial, or where he has been convicted of a crime and sentenced to imprisonment.
The law affords three remedies by means of which this right of personal liberty may be vindicated: (1) by the writ of habeas corpus; (2) by an action of damages for false imprisonment, and (3) by a prosecution of the person inflicting the illegal restraint-that is, a prosecution for assault.
I believe that should be an article of faith of every man in public life in this nation. I do not question the sincerity of my hon. friend. I do not question the sincerity of those who think the state should be all-powerful, though I might question their good common sense.


Joseph William Noseworthy: No one does.


Humphrey Mitchell: You have changed your
tune just in the last few minutes. You get my point. I do not question your sincerity; I might question your wisdom, if any. But I want to say this, if I may-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Stick to habeas corpus.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend is smiling about habeas corpus. He is the nearest approach to a habeas corpus I have ever seen. The legislation we have is working reasonably well, I think. As I said before, it has been in existence for only a couple of years. I know some people sit up and burn the midnight oil figuring out how much better things would be if we just changed this and just changed that. This legislation was supported by all parties in this house; I am not taking credit for it on behalf of any political party, but I think it should be given a fair trial. During the war we established these war labour boards in an effort to get a broad crystallization of the experience of men who should know the implications of negotiation between employer and employees. We did experiment with a three-man board, but I think my hon. friends will agree that it was not as successful as the board we have at the moment or the board we had during the war. On these boards we have a judge as chairman; we

have representatives of the construction industry, the railways, commerce and manufacturing generally on one side. On the other we have the trades and labour congress of Canada, the oldest labour organization in this country; the running trades, among the most responsible labour organizations in Canada; the newer organizations such as the Canadian congress of labour, that sprung into prominence and power largely through the establishment of the committee for industrial organization in the United States, and the national syndicates in Quebec, all of which in my judgment played a great part in the stabilization of labour conditions in Canada, which has been unexcelled by any other democratic country in the world.
That has been our experience. There may be some members of this house who have had more experience than these gentlemen to whom I have referred, but let us remember this. Once you set up this board as a judicial body by the very nature of things you must change its complexion. We have seen the difficulties they have experienced in the United States. I do not mean what I am going to say as a criticism of lawyers, because goodness knows when we get into trouble the first man we fly to is a member of the legal profession; but in the United States their first move is often to the courts. That is not my understanding of what you might call a practical approach to the differences which by the very nature of things exist between employers and employees in any free country.
Let us remember that if we did not have freedom we would not have a House of Commons. If we did not have freedom we would not have a Liberal party, a Conservative party, a C.C.F. party or a Social Credit party. If we did not have freedom we would not need trade unions, as we understand them; we would be, as they are behind the iron curtain, made to do as we were told, or else. No one knows this better than those who have been closely associated with this great movement down through the years. As I have said before, if you are an active trade unionist when you wake up in the morning and hear a knock on the door it is rather nice to know it is the milkman and not a policeman. That is something I have to say to my dictator friends. My hon. friend has been behind the iron curtain, though he does not say much about it; and I do not say that in any spirit of criticism. I say we should let the sunshine in. I meant to bring with me this evening the figures on the cost of living in Soviet Russia today. I do not know whether I should say this during the discussion of this bill, but it is not the money you have

in your pocket that counts, or what you get in your pay envelope; it is what that money will purchase.
Mr. Nose worthy: You cannot get anything if you have not got some.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend does not look as if he did not have any.


Arthur Leroy Smith: According to the song, the best things in life are free.


Humphrey Mitchell: We have to learn from the trade union movement in Great Britain. I have no criticism to offer of Great Britain. I was born there, but I do not live there now. I think the message of discipline and industrial statesmanship should be learned from the British trade union movement and the employers. It could well be emulated by the people of Canada. We have to learn that these concessions bring responsibility.
Turning now to the economy in general, I say that by the very nature of things every increase in profit, every increase in wages, must go into the price structure. That is one of the reasons, Mr. Speaker, why at this moment one sees so many British cars on the Canadian market. Price is the determining factor. When my wife or your wife goes out to buy a hat, she does not care who made the hat or what it looks like.


Gordon Graydon: You are in trouble tonight.


Humphrey Mitchell: I just want to say this to the member for Peel; I notice he is laughing and I thank him for being in good company. It is the consumer who calls the tune. I have stated this problem in simple language that I think every man and woman in this nation can understand. This moment in our lifetime calls for a degree of industrial statesmanship in order to check the present inflationary tendency. We hear a good deal about old age pensions, and pensions supplied by industry. What is the use of promising to pay a man $100 per month at the age of 65, if by the time he reaches 65 the $100 is only worth $1 or 50 cents? I think we have learned our lesson from the inflationary movement in other countries. I have said these things in sincere language, and I hope I will be given credit for being just as sincere as the others who have spoken, and who would advocate old age pensions at 21 years of age.
Briefly, this labour relations board, if it were turned into a court, must necessarily change its complexion. I would be the last one to deny any person in this country the right to be tried by a jury of his peers, presided over by a man who understood the rule of law.
industrial Relations


Angus MacInnis: should like to say a few words in support of this bill. I was not in the house when the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) began his remarks on it, but from what I have heard of his speech, if he does not mind my saying so, I would say a great deal of it does not refer to this bill at all. He has taken us all over the world, behind the iron curtain and back. This bill is all on this side of the curtain, if you understand what
1	mean. Let us consider what this bill proposes to do. It asks that a new section be added to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, providing that the board have the power to make an employer reinstate an employee discharged contrary to the provisions of this act, and pay to such employee the monetary loss suffered by reason of such discharge.
There is nothing in that amendment that interferes in any way with the rule of law. It is law. It is not contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. As a matter of fact, it is no more arbitrary that the board should make a decision such as is provided in this amendment, than that it should make any of the other decisions that the board may make. The decisions of the board are not subject to any appeal or any review by any court. The board's rulings are final, except in so far as they may be reviewed by the board itself. Let me read to you subsection
2	of section 61 which outlines the powers of the board. It reads as follows:
A decision or order of the board is final and conclusive and not open to question or review, but the board may, if it considers it advisable so to do, reconsider any decisions or order made by it under this act, and may vary or revoke any decision or order made by it under this act.
Surely a board with such wide powers as those is not going beyond the realm of what is necessary, if it undertakes to make a decision in such circumstances as are mentioned in the proposed amendment. If a trade union-and when I say "trade union" I also mean an industrial union; I am using the word in an all-inclusive sense-is strong enough, it does not require a provision such as this. The trade union of which I am a member has had such a provision in its agreement with the company, as a result of collective bargaining, for over forty years. As I say, if any trade union is strong enough it does not require to have legislation of this kind to protect its members in their relation with their employers. It is able to insist that the provision be inserted in any collective agreement that may be

Industrial Relations
entered into. But all unions are not strong, and all employers are not reasonable, any more than all unions are reasonable.
The Minister of Labour referred, and I think rightly so, to the statesmanlike policies and actions of the British trade unions during the last ten or twelve years. I agree with him. Their restraint is an object lesson to trade unionists all the world over. But you must remember that along with that statesmanship and really giving birth to it was the responsibility that was put on the shoulders of these trade unionists, particularly during the last five or six years.
I do not want to talk this measure out, Mr. Speaker, and although there is much more that I should like to say, I will conclude by saying that it would be much better to deal with the amendment purely on its merits rather than to take us on a merry-go-round all over the globe. You may not agree with it. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) may not agree with it. The members of the house may not agree with it. Nevertheless, it is a simple amendment; and it is not contrary to the principles or procedure that at present exist in this country between employers and employees. I suggest that no harm could be done; and I am sure it would serve some good purpose if this amendment were made to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.


Paul-Émile Côté: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add a word or two following the remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). In his own language, this bill would be simple in its nature and in its effect on the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. I strongly disagree with him on that point. As was pointed out by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) a few moments ago, if this bill were carried, it would transform the Canada labour relations board into a court of justice. All through the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, the emphasis has been placed on the conciliation character of the board and of the services provided by the department in case of negotiation of agreements and settlement of disputes.
If this bill were to carry, I submit that the purport of the act would be changed in a radical way. On account of that fact, there are several amendments that it would be necessary to make in order that the bill now before the house become really effective and applicable. One of the first changes would be to amend, if not to strike out, the existing section 40, subsection 2, which has been quoted by the Minister of Labour and which relates precisely to the offence of discharging

an employee contrary to the provisions of this act, and in which hon. gentlemen will find that adequate penalties are provided in case of a conviction. If the bill before the house were to carry without this amendment to section 40 being made at the same time, one would find that there would be in the act two sections in direct conflict one with the other. This would surely not make for the better administration of the act.
Another point which has been referred to by the minister himself is that the amendment before the house does not provide for the summoning of the parties before the board and for the holding of the hearing which is surely necessary if the board is to issue an order such as is provided for in the amending bill. In order to give the board the necessary powers Bill No. 6, which is on the order paper, would have to be carried in the first instance. In Bill No. 6 the first provision is as follows, and I just wish to quote these few words in order to make my thought clear on that point:
43. (1) Any employer or trade union may apply to the board for an order that any person, employee, trade union, employer or employers' organization has violated a provision of this act.
(2)	Upon receipt of such an application, the board shall by notice in writing, direct the party making the complaint and the party against whom the complaint has been made to appear before it and shall hear and receive such evidence as may be presented to it.
(3)	After hearing the evidence, as aforesaid, the board may. if it is of the opinion that there has been a violation of the provisions of this act, issue an order indicating the precise nature of the violation.
I submit that a provision such as this would be essential for the carrying out of the provision embodied in the bill which is now under discussion.
Another point, Mr. Speaker, is this. If the labour relations board were to be turned into a judicial body, as is the direct aim of this amending bill, one would have to give thought to changing the provisions of section 58, subsection 6, of the act, which reads as follows:
The board may receive and accept such evidence and information on oath, affidavit or otherwise as in its discretion it may deem fit and proper whether admissible as evidence in a court of law or not.
There are several other provisions in the act which clearly indicate that the labour relations board is not a judicial body; it may be considered as a semi-judicial body, an agency for the conciliation of disputes and for the administration of the act generally, and nothing more.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Some hon. Members:: Nine o'clock.


Angus MacInnis: It has the power to make an order now, has it not?


Charles Delmar Coyle: Yes; of course it has the power to make an order.


Mr. Speaker:: It being hine o'clock, and the hour reserved for private and public bills having expired, the house will resume the business that was interrupted at six o'clock.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Claxton for the second reading of Bill No. 133, respecting national defence.
Mr. O. L. Jones (Yale):: Mr. Speaker, resuming the debate on the motion to set up a committee on national defence, I should like to place before you briefly the point of view of this group.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The house is considering the motion for second reading of Bill No. 133, not the resolution to set up a committee.


Owen Lewis Jones: I stand corrected. It was my mistake, Mr. Speaker. We definitely welcome the efforts made to consolidate the five acts into one. As one who, in both the first war and the last war, had some experience in administrating some of the acts, I can assure you that I personally welcome this effort to remove the contradictions and confusions that were caused under the old legislation. With the conglomeration of sections and acts that we had to work with-I forget the number now; I think there were some six hundred to seven hundred sections-it was almost impossible, in the short time available during war, to train young officers to be efficient administrators of any of these acts, with the result that this confusion continued.
For instance, section 69 of the Militia Act made the Army Act from time to time in force in Great Britain, and the King's Regulations, applicable to Canada, as though they had been enacted by the parliament of Canada. So in the maintenance of discipline a man had to be charged with offences, not against the Militia Act of Canada, but against the appropriate section of the British Army Act. We have several glaring examples of confusion which have arisen from that complicated condition. For instance, certain offences are punishable more severely while the troops are on active service. The definition of "active service" as laid down in the British act applied during world war I when troops in Great Britain were not considered to be on active service; but when they went to France they became classified as being on active service. That conflicted with the
National Defence
requirements of the Canadian forces, especially at the time of world war II, when anyone who enlisted in Canada for overseas service was on active service. Yet that confusion remained and has remained until this day, and will remain until it is changed.
Troops called out under the National Resources Mobilization Act were not on active service. Then again, men were convicted and sentenced incorrectly because commanding officers did not understand the definition of "active service" as related to discipline. Hence hundreds of cases which had been tried incorrectly were later reviewed, and the sentences quashed. However, I feel that this new bill does clean up that difficulty.
Section 16 of the bill authorizes the governor in council to establish armed forces of whatever strength the governor in council pleases, and without limits. May I point out that the Militia Act of 1927 contained a limit of 10,000 officers and men for the permanent force. This was amended in 1947 to 30,000. Although that amendment at first did not include a limitation on the number of men, it was inserted at the request of parliament. This new bill has the same fault in that it does not include the number of men who can be enlisted in the permanent force. I feel this is one feature that has been fought bitterly, particularly in England, for generations, namely that the right of parliament to limit and to define the numbers in the forces should be maintained by parliament, and not by the minister or anyone else. That feature in my view should be reincluded in the bill.
I do not mind particularly what the numbers are. If the numbers now are not satisfactory I would be quite satisfied to have them doubled; but parliament must know the limit to which it is committed in the enlistment of men, particularly in peacetime. Otherwise we do not know to what expense we shall be subjected, with the minister having control without parliament. I do feel that if the figure now available, 30,000, is inadequate, it could be increased to 75,000.
Then subsection 4 of section 16 contains a limitation on the reserve force. I would suggest that a fair limit would be 120,000 or 150,000, whereas, as I understand it, the reserve force in February of this year, as reported in Hansard of March 29, stood at 48,912. So that with the reinsertion of the limitation that can be recruited, I think parliament could maintain the position for which it has fought and which it has held to the present time.
There is no provision in the new section 20 for the command of the armed forces to be vested in the king. Up to now the armed forces have been vested in the king, and through the usual channel of the governor

National Defence
general. I suggest this should be considered carefully, as to whether we should not again have that provision inserted, that the armed forces be vested in the king, as usual, with administration through the governor general and the king's privy councillors in Canada. I think that would be far better than giving complete control to the Minister of National Defence.
I notice that right through the changes which have been made there has been a gradual inclination to change the control formerly vested in the king and council to the minister and the departmental heads. I do not know whether that change is good or not, but I feel that with the complete control in the king and parliament we are on safer ground than to delegate this authority to the paid administrators in our defence system.
Then, the Militia Act provided for an age limit of eighteen for anyone joining the services. In the new bill there is no age limit. I believe an age limit of eighteen years is fair enough and acts as a safeguard against youth under that age tying up their lives in the army and later regretting it. I feel that if the age of eighteen were re-inserted it would protect them. Of course, in a case of dire necessity or of war, or something of that kind, parliament could reconsider its decision. I feel however that the age limit of eighteen years should be re-inserted in the bill.
Then, section 34-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I ask the hon. member not to refer in such detail to the clauses of the bill. At the present time the house should consider the principle of the bill and not the clauses.


Owen Lewis Jones: I am sorry I referred to the sections, but I had them noted that way. The new bill eliminates provision for the time of service required for training each year. I feel again that that is a provision which should be considered, because the principle there involved is that young men are called up annually to serve in the reserve forces, in the past for thirty days and now for an unlimited time. To place upon this period of service a limitation of thirty days or, if necessary, forty-five days and two or three weeks in camp as well as two or three weeks training at night, gives the employer of labour or of young men in those forces an opportunity to map out his program for tne year with the knowledge as to how many weeks or days the young man he employs will be away from his place of business, or from the industry or farm where he works.
At the present time the employer has no means of knowing how long the young man he employs will be absent from his work. For the protection of the industrial owner,

farmers and others, and also for the good of the department itself, I believe it would be best to come out flatly and say, "We need these young men for a certain period of days each year", and thus help to bring better feeling between industry and the department.
For many years regulations have been made in the army, both reserve and regular forces, to the effect that officers must wear certain dress on certain occasions. The rules are there; they are definite, and the officers have to follow them; but the unfortunate part of it to my mind is that these officers have to purchase the dress to which I have referred. While this was all right in the old days when people accepting commands in the army had plenty of money and could afford to pay, and when it was regarded as a privilege to buy their own clothes, today with our democratic army it is not fair to ask a young man who may be promoted from the ranks because of his ability to hold a commission to accept the penalty of having to buy his own clothes. It is not fair to say to him, "You must wear certain clothes, certain uniforms, and from your own pocket provide the wherewithal to purchase them." When dress is prescribed by this or any other act for wear by officers or men it should automatically be provided by the government. Otherwise I think it is unfair to have such a provision.
There should be considerable modification with regard to courts of inquiry, courts martial and so on. I have always felt that the sentences imposed were sometimes harsh and that the administration was often by inexperienced officers. I suggest that special schools be set up to train officers for work in these courts and before any man is entrusted with the trial of another man for a misdemeanour he should be properly trained, especially in the humanities, so that he can approach the problem with a sensible point of view.
I have known of officers who were not capable of sitting in judgment on their fellow men because they had not that happy faculty of seeing both sides of a situation. Where a charge is serious a man should have access to proper legal assistance, as was the case under the old act. The rights of soldiers should be properly protected. Many fine men were ruined in both wars by the imposition of unjust punishment. Resentment boiled up with the result that they made poor soldiers. In order to have a good soldier you must have an understanding commanding officer and an understanding officer in

charge of any court dealing with misdemeanours or other crimes. I hope that provision will be made for the proper training in legal matters and human behaviour of such officers as may be in charge of the administration of these courts.
I think the minister has taken the proper step by referring this bill to a committee. I hope that the ultimate result of this consolidation will be to see many sections deleted. I understand there are about 250 sections at the present time and I should like to see them cut down to about 100 sections so that every soldier and officer in the army would have time to go through the act and understand it. It is impossible for any man to understand thoroughly the present act with its numerous sections. It should be simplified, so that every soldier could understand it and would know what punishment he faces when he breaks the regulations. I suggest to the minister that he simplify the act in every possible way.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed the discussion up to the present time. I think the hon. member who has just taken his seat indicated a wide and thorough knowledge of what he was talking about. In approaching the matter of defence it is extremely important that we rid ourselves of the impressions gained from wars in the past. We must realize that from the word "go", or even before the word "go," in the wars of the future it will be a case of total war. It will be an instantaneous war. It will be what the Germans called a blitzkrieg. It will be a global war. We shall be fighting all over the world.
If we keep those three facts in mind we shall be helped in attempting to assess the adequacy or inadequacy of the act before us. In a general way I have the impression that the act has been drafted with those three general principles in mind, but I am not so sure that we could not improve it in respect of some of these matters.
The fact that we shall be in a total war means that the citizens in every area ought to be trained for citizen defence. I have not gained the impression that provision has been made for that kind of training on the North American continent. I hope that provision is being made in this act or in the regulations based upon the act. I hope something is done before too long because there is no telling how soon we may be called upon to start to use such training.
The fact that it is going to be an instantaneous war means that we are not going to have time to build war plants, to stimulate the production of food and clothing and
National Defence
shelter, to train precision toolmakers and all that sort of thing as we were in the previous war. We shall be faced with the necessity of having all these things in full running order to permit us to make a running start. I trust that provisions are being made by our Department of National Defence to meet the exigencies of that situation.
I am not so easy in my mind concerning this matter. One of our difficulties is that we cannot probe too deeply into the affairs of the department without calling on the minister to divulge information which it might not be in the public interest to divulge. But somehow or other the ordinary member of parliament like myself ought to have some special assurance that we are not going to have anything like the ghastly thing which confronted Great Britain in the last war when men were called upon to meet possible invasion arm^d only with pitchforks, and in some cases pitchforks without the tines. A thing like that must not be permitted to recur.
There is another serious danger by reason of the fact that the next war will be a global war. We shall not be able to keep the enemy concentrated anywhere. Before the last war we were ready to confine the enemy behind the Maginot line, but it turned out that he was anywhere except behind the Maginot line. No one today is unrealistic enough to hope to keep the enemy behind a Maginot line. But I wonder if we are taking all the precautions which ought to be taken against the possible isolation of considerable areas of our country which would render them completely helpless because of their being separated from all the means of sustenance which they ought to have.
On a previous occasion when we were discussing the matter of defence I took the opportunity of reminding the house that Great Britain divided that country into twelve divisions during the last war. The idea was to have each of those twelve divisions rather self-supporting so that, in case the other eleven divisions were occupied by the enemy, the one remaining division would be able to carry on and put up a good fight until assistance came. Up to the present time there has been, I believe, no attempt whatsoever to organize Canada into any such divisions. I am anxious lest three or four well directed blows paralyse the whole of Canada's war effort. I think that does not need to be the case, and we should take steps to see that it will not be the case. Of course I recognize that in the coming war we expect to be more or less under the wing of the United States, and consequently we

National Defence \
can afford to leave her to do a lot of the protecting of our affairs, but that great nation may be so occupied in several other areas of the globe that she may not be able to give us the attention that we may wish to have her give. I really have a feeling that we ought to attempt to be ready to stand on our own feet pretty well in case of an emergency.
So much having been said in a general way, I should like to draw attention to four or five things that have been in my mind since I have had the responsibility of giving defence matters attention for my group. I feel that our production of food, clothing and shelter has not been kept up to the standard which we would wish in case .we became suddenly engaged in a war. We are allowing our production to run down. The scarcity-minded men whose fallacies control government policy seem to be terrified at the thought of having any more wheat than we can sell in a given year, or ttop capacity to produce any more dairy products than we can use in a given year, and so on right through the various types of production of which we are capable.
Suppose it became necessary for us to put a million men into the field in a short time and find food, clothing and shelter with which to support such an army, together with another army engaged in war production. I think we should find that we were running into scarcities in a way that would confound us if war came. I hope the minister is fully cognizant of the potentialities of such a situation. I do not find any comfort in the scarcity which is being artificially induced in this country by a government that does not know how to deal with abundance. I hope the minister will not take anything I say as being in any way unkind or adverse criticism. I am merely endeavouring to warn the country before it is too late.
The situation does not look good to me so far as Canadian production is concerned. When a country like Canada cannot supply enough bacon to fulfil the contract with Great Britain it is not a very good sign that our house is being well managed. That is just one illustration of many.
I do not know whether or not we have a civilian defence organization throughout Canada. When I was in Great Britain in 1941 I was greatly impressed with the efficiency which they had developed by that time in the matter of taking care of fires, gas attacks, and that sort of thing. They had citizens defence committees in superabundance, well trained and ready to go. I have not heard any rumours concerning citizens defence committees being ready to go in Canada at all. Even if we depend upon the

United States for the major portion of our protection I think we should still have some sort of provision for citizens defence committees. I will not go into further detail in that regard but I hope that my general words will impress those who need to be impressed in Canada.
In line with the general necessity for guarding against the possibility of being completely put out of business by two or three well directed blows, I think we ought to have decentralization of Canadian industries to a far greater extent than at the present time. All the talking that we from western Canada and the maritimes have been able to do does not seem to have percolated into the heads of the responsible men in Ontario and Quebec to the extent that they are impressed that they really ought to put some industries in other parts of Canada from the standpoint of sheer common-sense self-defence. I hope it will not be necessary to sound that warning any more.
All our great munitions factories are located in Ontario and Quebec. An attacking force only needs to concentrate on those two provinces and the rest of us will simply be overcome as the result thereof. That does not seem like wise planning for a great nation such as Canada. Of course it will be said there are a lot of objections, but there will be a whole lot of wishes that things had been different if a serious disaster should befall us, and it were found that disaster had occurred because of our inability to have a little foresight instead of nothing but hindsight.
I think regional defence units have been completely neglected in Canada. I may be too far out of touch with the facts but I have an idea I am going'to confide to those members who are indulgent enough to be paying attention to me. I believe that one day when Canada is organized in the most efficient way she will endeavour to lay out the whole country in certain more or less self-sufficient units. I think we spend far too much of our time and effort in. hauling pretty nearly everything in Canada over two great rocky barren wastes. We take everything from Ontario and Quebec across a thousand miles of rocky wilderness; which is a dead loss to the railroads making the trip, and we make the western provinces pay the whole cost. Then we haul everything back over that same dead barren waste, making the east pay all the costs, or the west if possible, and usually the east is able to make the west do it. All this is a dead loss to the economy of Canada.
In my judgment it is a matter that ought to be overcome. If we had in the three prairie provinces a more or less self-sufficient

unit in which we had the major industries for producing textiles, for example, and the various manufactured goods which we ordinarily need, we should not be under the necessity of transporting manufactured products over that vast rocky wilderness, and the nation would be ever so much stronger by reason of that fact. The same thing should be true of the west coast. I think it is a dead loss for the people of British Columbia to have to haul so large a percentage of the manufactured products they need across not only one barren wilderness in Ontario but another barren wilderness in the Rocky mountains and pay the shot both ways. That certainly does not look like a good national economy.
While we are considering the matter of defence we could have in mind some such desirable objective as that of creating several rather more or less self-sufficient economic units in our country. I think it would be all to the good from the standpoint of defence as well as economics. Therefore I should like to see the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) persuade his colleagues, and if he cannot persuade them let us know about it and we will help him-I should like to see the Minister of National Defence persuade these men that they ought to take definite steps to industrialize the region west of the Rocky mountains, the prairie region, and the maritimes so that those areas will have great industries and will have a strong pulsating economy which will enable them to live independently of the rest of Canada, That does not mean that Canada is not going to work together as a unit. It means there will be less need in times to come for assistance such as is now given to the rather undeveloped areas of Canada, shall I say. I do not know whether we have enough machine tools; I am not in a position to be able to find out. I do not know whether we have all the factories necessary to manufacture the ships and guns and tanks and planes and other necessities of war soon enough to be able to successfully conduct a major operation. I trust that things of that kind are being looked after.
There is another matter I think has been impressed upon all hon. members of the house and perhaps many people throughout the country by what has occurred in Canada during the last few years in the way of emergencies. Out in the Fraser valley two years ago we had a disastrous flood. After the horse was out of the stable we did our best to put it back and repair the stable, but it would have been a great deal better if we had repaired the stable and kept the horse in before the thing happened, in other words if we had been ready for it. Now we have
National Defence
the Winnipeg disaster. I am told that it was made known to a committee of the house today that early in the spring a certain United States engineer went to the town of Emerson, after having taken cognizance of the heavy snow lying in the upper reaches of the Red river and after having computed the probable rate at which that snow would melt; that he went into a drug store in that town and put a little mark on the door post, saying, "That is the point at which the waters will stand when they are going out of the Red river." If that fact had been conveyed with sufficient emphasis to all the people down the Red river who would be affected, think of the millions of bags of sand that could have been accumulated during the long weeks before the sudden onset of this flood, and look at the tremendous losses that could have been avoided, just being prepared.
Since it is quite obvious that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) is going to be called upon to contribute liberally in dealing with these disasters, as they occur one after another, I do not see any particular reason why he should not say, "Very well. Since we are going to be called in on these big emergencies, we had better be trained so we can go at them effectively. We had better have plans all made so that we shall be ready to fight the battle with some hope of success and some measure of efficiency before it is lost."
That brings to attention several thoughts. Perhaps the minister has already taken this step, but in case he has not I trust that the defence research board will be advised that it would be well for them to be examining into these matters and giving advice on how the boys should be trained and equipped, and drilled to deal with various kinds of emergencies such as floods, fires, forest fires and the like, which are always liable to occur suddenly in Canada, judging by our experiences of the last few years. That is something which the minister might keep in mind in the days to come.
I have just been rambling around in my remarks this evening, but I think I have suggested a good many things that the defence research board, which is dealt with in part III of the act, can be instructed to give very careful attention to, and I -would be glad if the minister, the next time he has occasion to speak, could tell us that he has envisaged all these possibilities and has made all these preparations so that we shall not be caught off guard in case there should be a major disaster.
The minister may say we have not the money to do these things. Well, my general reaction, which I am not going to discuss at

National Defence
any length tonight, is that the financial capacity of Canada ought to be gauged by the physical capacity of Canada. If Canada can produce the goods and services necessary to attain the high standard of military preparedness which my remarks have envisaged, then Canada should certainly be able to get the money with which to employ this physical capacity to achieve the objective we have in mind.
If the government and its present financial advisers are unable to tell how this can be done, it is high time they sought advice from people who know more about modern finance than apparently they have been able to learn up to the present time. So if the minister is being deprived of the money he considers it necessary to have in order to give Canada the kind of defence mechanism Canada should have as a producing unit, considering her resources of men and materials and machines and factories; if he is unable to get the money to accomplish the objective which Canada is capable of accomplishing, then we want him to make that known to us so that we can all do something about it. I think he will find a good many members of his own party who will be ready to help him out, too, and who will not be quite so ready to listen to some of the outworn ideas of finance with which they have been indoctrinated up to the present time.
So I do not know that we would be prepared to accept from the minister the plea that he did not have the money with which to do anything which is physically possible in Canada. Let us bear in mind that not until the recent war broke out, and even then not until the war began to look terribly dangerous, after eight months or so, did it become evident that we could make whatever was physically possible in Canada financially possible. But then when we did make it financially possible, we did so by the accumulation of colossal debts which now we have to pass on to future generations to repay. The time to take care of this problem for the next war is before the war occurs. Let us find some means whereby what is physically possible in this dominion can be made financially possible without the accumulation of taxes and debts.
Having made this contribution, I shall defer any further remarks until some future time.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Speaker, my remarks on this matter will be brief and will concern themselves with one subject only; that is, the matter of courts martial. Everyone realizes that in a military organization discipline is a must, but I am opposed to the whole principle of courts martial as we know them. By that I am not

for one moment suggesting that commanding officers should not exercise the discretion that is given them in dealing with breaches of discipline and minor matters of various kinds.
I think it absolutely wrong in principle, how-. ever, that courts martial as they are now and as they have been should deal with offences when there is an opportunity of having those offences tried in the normal way in a civilian court.
In saying what I do I speak perhaps not with authority but certainly with some considerable experience in defending people before courts martial. The thing that is wrong is that each and every one of the five men you have making up a general court martial is in some way, unconsciously if you will, anxious to do nothing that would displease the senior officer who has set up that court. We know that before any court martial is ordered in a district, for example, the district officer commanding may do a number of things. He may take certain steps of his own, from a reprimand up. He may take the ultimate and final step, after his investigation and after he has read the written statements presented by the persons who have investigated, and order a court martial composed of officers junior to himself. In other words, they may take those officers from the various districts who have the authority to set it up, be it the minister

I do not mean the present minister, but the minister of national defence-who has on occasion set up these courts martial in which I have personally had a part, over and above the men who usually deal with such matters. No one will think for a moment that the persons sitting there as judges are not influenced by the fact that the man above them, be it the minister or be it an officer commanding a district, who read the evidence, has said, "This is beyond my powers: the offence is too grave, so I am going to set up this court martial." No one can tell me that the persons sitting as judges are likely to make a finding in favour of the accused person when their superior officer has, in setting up the court after investigation, virtually told them that the man is guilty. In other words, lest anyone think that I am criticizing the individuals who sit as judges, I may say that were I in that position I would no doubt be equally influenced. It is not human nature for any person to tell a superior, who has power of preferment over him, that he is wrong and this man is not guilty.
That is the situation as we have it today. I am not suggesting it was started by anyone in the house. It is an old court which has outlived its usefulness. Someone will say: Since you object to this what do you suggest

by way of an alternative? I say, Mr. Speaker, that while it is not my business to suggest alternatives, I do say that when servicemen are charged with crimes under the Criminal Code, such as theft, and I was once engaged in defending a man charged with theft and another man charged with rape-the only crime other than murder and treason for which the Criminal Code prescribes hanging as one of the penalties-it does seem to me utterly wrong in principle that a man so charged should be tried by officers in the army. He should simply be turned over to the civil authorities, so that he will get what everyone else gets, a fair trial in the courts of our land.
I know in one case, in which the charge was not a severe one, the officer so charged had been reprimanded by the commanding officer of the district. I speak of the time when we had districts and not the commands into which our army is divided today. To try that man we had three men of the rank of brigadier, two of the rank of colonel and an alternate, I think that is the word, of the rank of colonel. They all came from outside the district. It was a trial ordered by the then minister of national defence. We had a judge advocate who came from Vancouver; a prosecutor who came from Toronto, and I may say I was there for eight days. I came from Calgary, and I received a delightful thank you at the end of the show. All that was accomplished was that this man received a mild reprimand. The expense which was entailed in gathering all those people together was so far out of line with anything that was accomplished, or that might be accomplished, that to me the thing was ridiculous. It was then that I finally made up my mind this outmoded method should be eliminated.
I do not intend to mention any names, but I will say that on this court we had elderly men, men who were anxious to go to England or to Europe. They were anxious to go to fight as a matter of fact for their country, but they were of an age where they were not first-line men at all. In discussions with them I learned that they knew their only opportunity of getting a command overseas-they were veterans of the first war as well-was by the favour, and I do not use that word in a harsh way at all, of those persons above them who would have the right to say whether or not they were entitled to preferment. I know it is a difficult thing to make any change in something which has been a custom for so long, but I do think, Mr. Speaker, that the minister might well review this whole picture to see if we cannot find a more sensible means of meting out justice to servicemen who are accused of crime. I
National Defence
am not talking about taking a toothbrush from another fellow's kit, or anything of that sort. I was going to say that is a thing, particularly where many men are grouped together in quarters, which always happens. I am talking about these more serious offences. I did defend a man in a court martial in the air force who was charged with rape. At the end of the road he was found guilty, and he was dishonourably discharged or "cashiered'' as they put it. Remember, he was my client; but I say that had he been in a civil court he would have been sent to jail for five or ten years, and that is where he deserved to be. In that way, justice was cheated because of the method which was used in connection with the trial.
I said, Mr. Speaker, that I would take only a few minutes, and I shall keep my word. I am not blaming anybody for anything, but I am trying to make a suggestion which will eliminate any thought on behalf of an accused person or those who act for him that he is being judged by persons who may be seeking favours from other persons above them in rank and who put them there in that particular spot. I therefore ask for the careful consideration by the minister of the suggestions that I have made.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: It is
most interesting, Mr. Speaker, to listen to some of those who have spoken this evening. As a veteran of the first war, having served as a private and committed almost all the minor offences a private soldier could commit, and enjoyed them all and having served as an officer and continued to commit many minor offences for which I was brought to task, I listened with interest to that eminent lawyer, the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith), making suggestions with regard to courts martial. The matter could be studied thoroughly, because there is no doubt about the red tape, the squandering of the taxpayers' money and the fact that officers were appointed to courts martial who had very little legal experience.	.
But to suggest that all enlisted men should take the time to study, not the king's rules and regulations but the House of Commons of Canada rules and regulations, when the war is almost over before we ever start fighting, and that you are going to have these rules and regulations so simplified, as suggested by some of the speakers here this evening, that every private soldier is going to take time off and neglect his rifle or his anti-aircraft gun or his military training in order to become a first-class barrack-room lawyer, is absolutely ridiculous. You will not find many of the colonels taking much time on the rules and regulations. For the
2556

National Defence
sake of the Canadian public, let me say this. Few men who committed crimes in the first great war received sentences which were not correct. They were charged with drunkenness and overstaying leave, which I had the honour of doing, and offered every excuse in the world. I think I got five days confined to barracks, and then did it again. That will continue. You can tell any soldier that he is going to get confined to barracks if he overstays his leave two days in London, and he is going to overstay four because he does not care about fifteen days confined to barracks. For instance, suppose a man were on leave in London or in Paris. Can you imagine a man walking along the Champs Elysees in Paris suddenly saying to his pal, "We had better get home in time or we are going to be confined to barracks for five days"? How utterly ridiculous!
It is suggested that these rules should be so simplified that every soldier is going to have time to read them. If they were half as thick as this pamphlet I have in my hand, they would not read them. If they did, they would not train to become the men we need during a war. Even with regard to courts martial, let the public of Canada remember this. It was seldom that any man did not receive his just deserts from his fellow soldiers, officers who had served. A man who becomes an officer does not lose his human instincts and the human kindness that runs through any man's body. They feel for the common soldier when he comes before them, just as any civilian would. No man becomes hardened towards his fellow man because he serves his king and country. I will say this, and I think every man in this house who served in the first war will agree: The percentage would be one-tenth of one per cent where there was a miscarriage of justice dealt out by active service officers. Fortunately I did not spend much time with courts martial in Canada during the first war. I say "fortunately" because from what I heard about some of the courts with elderly gentlemen who wanted to get overseas, there might have been grave infractions of the law and miscarriage of justice. But overseas men were not sentenced who did not deserve sentences, except in the most remote cases. I have talked to men whom I have defended in courts martial and the courts have said, after they have heard me or heard my plea as the defending officer of these men: "What do you think we should really give this man?" I have suggested five months first field punishment No. 1. I have had these men say, "I deserve every bit of it; I struck that officer. I got drunk. It is not the first occasion, it is my third. I am lucky I am not going to be shot." One man I have in

mind turned out to win the D.C.M. and rose to the rank of sergeant. The last time I saw that man, he was proceeding with a bayonet into a machine gun nest and I believe he received a bar to his D.C.M. for his actions on that occasion. Men who went to Wandsworth, sentenced by the military courts of England-I believe the most severe military prison in the British empire-came out of there and admitted that they were better men than when they went in. Do not let it ever be forgotten that amongst the soldiers defending Canada were men who came out of the penitentiary and joined the armed forces, and who had committed the most atrocious crimes apart from murder that it is humanly possible for a man to commit. Many of these men who were convicted by fair and just courts did not receive any sentence while fighting overseas with the first Canadian army. I say this to the minister. Do not let him try to prepare a pamphlet that he believes will ever foe read by two per cent of the Canadian army. If there is ever a war on, a real soldier will never even read the first page, and yet he will serve well and most of them without crime of any kind.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


Brooke Claxton: I should like very much, Mr. Speaker, to express the great pleasure I think it is to all of us to have heard this bill debated in the co-operative way in which it has been debated. As another "other ranker" of the first war, I should like to say that I particularly agree with a good deal of the gusto and also of the sentiment of the last speaker, the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson).


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would you give us some personalities too?


Brooke Claxton: I could also give some personalities, both on the giving and on the receiving end. During the second world war I was one of those people whom the hon. member defied really in his last remarks, for I wrote a little pamphlet on military law. I do not know how many people read it, but at least it was printed to the extent of some
25,000	copies. Up to that time, that was perhaps one of the greatest distributions of a book in Canada apart from the Bible. I do not think it got many people into much trouble, but it helped quite a few younger officers to pass their examinations. I do not think it got down to the rank of the hon. member and myself during the first world war, so that we did not cause any more trouble because of that publication.

1 should like to say that the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson) seemed to answer fairly effectively the remarks of the hon. member from Calgary West (Mr. Smith); but I thought that the most surprising thing about the speech of the hon. member for Calgary West was the fact that he kept on talking about the supreme kind of injustice that was being done by courts martial, yet he succeeded in getting the accused persons off with a sentence which he thought was inadequate, which certainly reflects his skill as counsel.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Could you
have had a better witness?


Brooke Claxton: You are right, but not as to the severity or the unfairness of the courts. That is a question, of course, of great difficulty; and I am sure the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), because of his wide experience, will bring some part of that experience before the committee when it is set up, as we hope it will be. I may say that all the countries of which we have any knowledge have been equally concerned with us in this question as to how to administer service justice. Approaches have seen similar, and I believe conclusions have been somewhat similar.
However, if there is any way in which we can do the job better than it has been done in the past, or better than contemplated in this bill, then let us bring it before the committee and have it threshed out there so that we can get the best kind of bill and the best kind of disciplinary code to be found anywhere.
With regard to some of the observations made by some hon. members, I would remind the house that the difficulty about this kind of legislation is that we must deal with things under conditions of peace but always anticipating a possible condition of war. Consequently while many of us would like to see many of the sections in the disciplinary code eliminated and left to the criminal law, we are still face to face with the possible necessity of having to administer service law during a time of emergency in a foreign country where there is no criminal law and no civil court. We have to have some kind of court in which to do it.
I think the most amazing feature of this debate is that during the course of the discussion not a genuine case of grievance has been brought forward. I think if that is true, having had some million and a quarter men and women serving throughout the most dreadful war in history, many of them brought before courts martial and many of them sentenced-and all of them having
National Defence
members of parliament to represent them- it is amazing to find that we have had no cases of grievance brought forward here.


George Randolph Pearkes: But surely when we are discussing the principle of the bill is not the time to bring forward cases of grievance.


Brooke Claxton: I agree. That would be completely in accordance with the rules. But the rules have not always been completely observed, and some hon. members have brought forward instances which they have suggested illustrated some defect or another. It is an excellent record, I suggest, and one greatly to the credit of this country and its soldier citizens, its armed forces, that so far in this discussion there has not been much by way of complaint.
So far hon. members have spoken in terms of co-operation. That, I can assure them, is most warmly welcomed. I would hasten to give the hon. member for Nanaimo all the assurance he asked. For instance, he referred to one section, namely section 4 of the old Militia Act as having been left out. The hon. member for Yale (Mr. Jones) referred to the same thing. As I said this afternoon, that section was left out because it was to be found, in different terms, in section 15 of the British North America Act; and it was thought desirable to leave the British North America Act standing as it was, in its own language, without repeating it in different terms in this bill.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to interrupt, but I would point out for the minister's consideration the fact that section 15 of the British North America Act refers only to naval and armed forces and that consideration should be given to the limiting effect of those words.


Brooke Claxton: I am sure they have no limiting effect. However, that is a question which can be placed before the committee for consideration.
The hon. member for Nanaimo said that not only should we see what is contained in the 251 sections of the bill, but we should also look into what has been left out of the 598 sections of the act which it replaces. I hold in my hand one of several volumes which contain all the old statutes. On the opposite page we find what has happened to them, and where they can be located in the bill. This book has been prepared by the judge advocate general's office, and it is available for the members of the committee. That information will be completely available. Then, on the other hand, we are reversing the process we have in the bill itself,

Defence Services Pensions and opposite each section are references showing its origin and the reference to the sections of the various statutes it replaces.
Therefore I can give the hon. member the assurance he wishes that all the resources of the department and all the work that has been done will be put before the committee. Every effort will be made to co-operate with the committee in seeing that we have the best possible statute to accomplish the job we want to do, and that is to look to the discipline of the armed forces and the regulations of the department in the interests of greater efficiency, greater security for Canada, and greater justice for the services.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



DEFENCE SERVICES PENSIONS


Brooke Claxton: the second reading of Bill No. 134, to amend the Militia Pension Act and change the title thereof.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, this bill is based
on a resolution which was adopted by the house without any preliminary statement from me. I believe I gave some assurance that such a statement would be made.
The Militia Pension Act which this bill would amend provides for pensions and gratuities for members of the regular forces of Canada on their retirement, and for their dependents on their death. Amendments proposed in this bill would simplify administration, expedite payment and correct certain anomalies. All the proposed amendments will, I believe, be found to be in the interest of the officers and men of the fotces.
The Militia Pension Act enacted in 1901 applied only to the army. This is part I of the present Militia Pension Act. In 1928 parts II and III were added to extend the act to the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force. In 1937 part IV provided that pensions granted in accordance with parts I, II, and III would be paid in monthly instalments.
In 1945 a committee under the chairmanship of Mr. G. D. Finlayson, C.M.G., then superintendent of insurance, was set up to recommend amendments which would make provision for members of the armed forces similar in principle to the Civil Service Superannuation Act. The status of members of the regular forces to whom parts I to IV applied was not to be disturbed but they were given the right to elect to come under part V. This new part came into operation on the 31st August 1946 end applied to members of

the regular forces enrolled after 31st March 1946 and to those who prior to 31st March 1948 elected to become contributors under this part.
Part V will become the only part of the act in effect when the 3,234 servicemen to whom parts I to IV apply will have died or have been retired from the forces. It is expected that this number will be reduced if the option to come under part V is extended as proposed by this bill.
Under parts I to IV of the act, members of the regular forces who serve for 20 years or more and are retired for reasons other than their own misconduct are granted a pension for each year of service of one-fiftieth of their pay and allowances at the time of their retirement if they were appointed to the forces prior to May 1, 1929, or if appointed after May 1, 1929, on the average annual rate of pay and allowances for the three years preceding retirement.
Officers and warrant officers pay a contribution of five per cent per annum of their pay and provision is made for a pension or other benefits for widows and dependents. In the case of ranks below warrant officer no contribution is paid and no provision is made for widows and dependents. All members of the regular forces to whom part V applies contribute to the pension fund and the benefits on retirement or to their dependents upon their death are similar to those granted to members of the civil service.
The first clause of the bill would change the title of the act from the Militia Pension Act to the Defence Services Pension Act. This, I believe, is more appropriate for an act which applies to all three services.
Persons to whom parts I to IV applied who wished to come under part V had to elect to do so before March 31, 1948. It has been found that a number of persons who wished to come under part V did not make application before that date and the amendment to paragraph (b) of section 43 would extend to December 31, 1950, the time within which election may be made to come under part V.
Under the present part V, a contributor who wishes to reckon for pension purposes his service prior to his becoming a contributor has to elect to do so within one year after becoming a contributor. The purpose of the amendment to subsection 1 of section 45 is to extend the time within Which such an election can be made to a period of six months after the coming into force of the amendment.
The amendments to subsections 12 and 13 of section 4, as set out in clause 4 of the bill, and to paragraph (fa) of section 53, as set out

Defence to such a committee. If that committee can appropriately deal with this limited in clause 12 of the bill, would place on the same footing officer pensioners under parts I to IV or part V who, subsequent to retirement, accept employment in the public service of Canada.
I have attempted to indicate very briefly to the house the major points involved in the proposed amendments. Any further explanation which hon. members require will be given when this bill is discussed in committee. It is proposed that the bill would be referred to the committee to be set up to deal, with the national defence bill, and the prize money bill which will be introduced following the resolution.
I should like to give some illustrations of the pay and pension of married men with 35 years service to indicate to hon. members the pensions that are payable under the existing provisions. These are as follows:
Pay Pension
Sergeant	 $2,532.00	$1,772.40
Warrant officer, class 1
Tradesman class group 4...	3,468.00	2,427.60Major	
5,232.00	3,662.40
I believe that those provisions will be found to be more liberal than those in force in the armed forces of any other country. The main purpose of these amendments is to make still more liberal, not in the rates of payment but in the provisions under which men may qualify. The bill also aims to bring about a more efficient and simplified working of the act.
The act as amended in 1946 has been in operation for some four years and the anomalies to which I have referred and the improvements which are thought to be necessary have come to light during that time. Our hope is that it will be possible to enact before too long a much more simplified pension act along the lines of the provisions existing in part V and providing for the residual group in parts I to IV in much more simple terms. Until we have taken this interim step that would be a difficult thing to bring about because of the different categories of officers and men affected.
If the house adopts the proposals that are now made it will enable us, say within a period of a year or two, to reintroduce a completely new Defence Services Pension Act providing substantially the same provisions but making the administration and application much more simple. I regard this interim step as essential in order to extend to some men who have been excluded by cut-off dates from some of the conditions that they would like to have under part V. For
Defence Services Pensions all these reasons I commend the bill to the favourable consideration of the house.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, in addition to the change in the title of the act, which obviously is desirable, it is also necessary that service personnel pensions should be revised. Changing conditions of the service have made such a review necessary and therefore we shall agree to the amendments which are being recommended in this bill.
Changing conditions of service have placed the emphasis upon youth. The services today are young. As these young men are serving in peacetime they must be given the opportunity to gain experience in command so that they would be able to meet the requirements of service should war break out in the future. In order to enable them to gain that experience in command, there must be retirement at the top so that there can be a general movement up through the various ranks of the forces.
The retirement of a great many of the permanent force personnel will be necessary before they have completed the full term in order to draw their maximum pension. That presents complications because you cannot have a lot of young men retiring and being able to draw substantial pensions for many years to come without placing a heavy drain on the treasury, nor can you turn these young men loose without giving them adequate means to maintain themselves. One has to have in mind the increased cost of living. Therefore it is not easy to find the medium by which pensions should be paid. I note that in the bill emphasis is placed upon the fact that henceforth men who retire will receive their pensions as a matter of right instead of as an act of grace on decision of the minister. I am not sure that the policy of accepting the pension as a matter of right is carried all through the bill because there are obstacles placed in the way of the ex-serviceman, be he officer or other rank, in accepting a position in other branches of the government service than the armed forces. I cannot help feeling that it might be advisable to make some further modifications in the bill in order to permit greater facilities for ex-servicemen to take appointments in other branches of the government service.
There are a number of small details such as the cut-off date, to which the minister referred, which may need some discussion and adjustment in the committee. I am not quite certain that in all cases we have taken the correct cut-off date but those matters will be better discussed in the committee than at this stage. I do not intend to take up any more time of the house. I merely wish to say that when the bill is sent to the

National Defence-Committee committee I trust every opportunity will be given for a thorough examination of all branches in connection with service pensions.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Brooke Claxton: That a special committee be appointed to consider Bill No. 133, an act respecting national defence; with power to send for persons, papers and records and to report from time to time; and that the said committee consist of Messrs. Adamson, Balcer, Bennett, Blackmore, Blanchette, Campney, Cavers, Claxton, Dickey, George, Gillis, Harkness, Henderson, Higgins, Langlois (Gaspe), Lapointe, Larson, McLean (Huron-Perth), Pearkes, Hoberge, Stick, Thomson, Viau, Welbourn and Wright; and that standing order 65 (1) be suspended in relation thereto.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, on the 14th day of March I moved that a special committee be set up to'deal with the question of national defence. In support of my motion I gave two examples of the type of investigation that such a committee could deal with. One was to examine the national defence bill which the minister has suggested this evening should be referred to the special committee. The other was to examine the question of the estimates. The house decided not to accept my motion and it was defeated. A few days later the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) was speaking on the defence estimates and he was called to order because he again suggested that the estimates be referred to a special committee. He was told that he was out of order because the house had decided on the matter of the broader principle of the committee examining not only the estimates but the bills in question, and the ruling of the Speaker was upheld by a vote.
Therefore I am very doubtful whether the motion can be considered to be in order because what is sauce for the goose should also be sauce for the gander. Nevertheless perhaps half a committee is better than no committee at all, and I am not going to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give a ruling on the point I have raised. I only repeat what I said earlier today, that I hope the committee will be given the widest possible scope to examine into all the ramifications of the various bills. The minister has already given assurance that that can be done. There are cases, as he mentioned when discussing Bill No. 133, where the financial aspects of the bill are brought out in various sections thereof. It will therefore be necessary to examine the effect of some of the financial recommendations which are being made.

For instance, we are to consider the effect of unification of the various services. It is to be hoped that unification will bring about a lessening of the amount of money which might be required for each of the services if they were to continue to operate separately. Emphasis has also been placed on giving a strictly Canadian appearance to our forces. To attempt to Canadianize the navy particularly will undoubtedly require an additional expenditure of money. That is quite obvious. Therefore the committee should be given the opportunity to inquire into the financial effect of the various sections in the different bills. Provided assurances can be given that there is full scope for the committee to inquire into any branch of the services which may be affected by any of the bills, I do not wish to press what may be considered to be a point of order as to whether or not the motion is in order.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, before the motion is put I want to remove any suggestion that may have been conveyed by the minister's remarks on the bill itself that the subject has been comprehensively covered at this point. I believe in a great many cases it was thought by hon. members, including myself, that detailed discussion could best take place when the bill was before the committee and then brought back to the house for further consideration.
There is one point I should like to raise, however, before the minister speaks on this motion to set up a committee. Certainly I am not suggesting for a moment that the minister must assume responsibility for interpretation placed by the press upon his words or actions, unless he himself has been responsible for those interpretations; but I believe hon. members will have read statements in the press during the past few days that it is the intention of the minister to widen the scope of this inquiry beyond what was originally contemplated and, at least to some extent, comply with the requests which have been made that a general discussion be permitted of the organization of the Department of National Defence and its affairs generally. If there is nothing in those statements the minister can remove any doubt about it. If on the other hand it is intended to widen the scope of the inquiry before this committee I think it would be well for the minister to clarify that point now and indicate to what extent that is so. I remind the house that the bill is being sent to a committee on the motion of the minister himself, and I suggest that this invalidates the argument he has made from time to time that it would not be a desirable thing to refer the whole organization of the Department of National

Defence to such a committee. If that committee can appropriately deal with this limited aspect of the affairs of the department, then it could have dealt with the wider organization and its work would have been of greater value to this house and to the people of Canada.
I rise now simply to indicate that it is my intention, as I know it is the intention of other hon. members, to defer any detailed examination of the bill until later; but I hope the minister will clarify the situation in the light of the press reports to which I have referred.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Brooke Claxton: I should like to say again how
appreciative I am of the very helpful remarks of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes). I venture to say he is one of the few people who really know how the Militia Pension Act works. It is a complicated matter dealing with servicemen who have come in at different periods and under different arrangements all the way back to the great war of 1914-19. As I have said, our hope is that this bill will be an interim step which will permit us to deal with the difficulties that have been revealed by experience, and enable us to progress toward that measure we would like to see adopted, a much simpler and more streamlined bill along the lines of part V. So I hope the house will take that into consideration just as soon as it may be possible.
As to what the hon. gentleman said about the origin of the committee, or the proposal for a committee, may I say at once that- as far as I know the first suggestion that this and other measures should come before a committee of this house was made during the discussion of this and other defence measures last November. At that time I indicated to the house my hope that the defence bill itself would go to a committee. That was on November 18, at page 1946 of Hansard. A little later the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) asked again:
Did I understand the minister to say that, with respect to the forthcoming bill-
That is, the defence bill.
-he was disposed to recommend that it be referred to a committee?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.
That answer has stood from then until now. So I was astonished, if I may meet the invitation of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), to read in the Montreal
National Defence-Committee Gazette of Monday, May 15, 1950, this statement:
(Gazette resident correspondent)
In a totally unexpected move, the government will make provision very soon for the establishment of a special parliamentary defence committee.
The indication of the possible scope of this committee was made very clear at the point in Hansard to which I have referred, and also during the discussion in this house on April 18 of this year, when the resolutions preceding both the defence bill and the pension act were brought before the house. What the Gazette resident correspondent was doing in the meantime I do not know, but apparently he was not following the proceedings of the house. Equally unfortunate is the heading over this report:	"Group to
study defence costs." I have not decided who will discuss defence costs, and it is not within my power to make any such decision. That is a matter for the house; and the house will discuss defence costs in accordance with its decision when it resumes consideration of the defence estimates, which will be as soon as possible. Therefore as to the scope of this committee I can assure the hon. member for Nanaimo that it will have full scope to discuss Bill No. 133 within the terms of this motion, if it is adopted, in accordance with the rules of the house; and I am not going to give him any assurance that those rules will be extended. In fact I would think, to the contrary, that the house itself would wish the rules to be observed and that this bill, and the other two, should be considered as I believe such legislation should be considered, by a committee of the house. There will be no assurance from me that the proper and parliamentary scope of what is decided by this house this evening will be extended in any way, other than that the resources of the department and certainly my own support will be given to everything the committee does in accordance with the rules as they are determined by the house.
So let there be no misunderstanding. The assurance I give with respect to the scope of this committee's operations extends only to the fullest consideration of a piece of legislation of the utmost importance; and whatever is proper to that consideration no doubt will be considered by the committee in accordance with the rules.
With regard to the suggestion by the leader of the opposition that my attitude on this invalidates some argument I have advanced in the past against the setting up of a committee to deal with the whole subject of defence, of course that again is contrary to the decision of the house, and I would not like to follow the hon. gentleman on that point because it has been decided already this session. It is, I suggest, fundamental

Canada Prize Act
that we recognize that in between consideration of legislation which is in accordance with the British parliamentary practice which is usually done by one of the committees of the house lettered from A to E, and the kind of suggestion that has been made in the past for something quite different, along the American lines, there is a world of difference. That difference is of fundamental importance to the conduct of our business.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I would just remind the minister that the suggestion was made in the exact words of an article written by the minister and recommending that procedure, as well as that there should be a wide open review of the affairs of the department.


Brooke Claxton: Yes, the leader of the opposition cannot possibly get any more satisfaction out of repeating references to that article, and bringing it before this house-


George Alexander Drew: It is a very good one.


Brooke Claxton: A very good one, but unfortunately I am one of those people, I am glad to say, who admit when they were wrong, and that is one of the occasions on which I was wrong. Perhaps the leader of the opposition never admits he is wrong; I do not know. I am very glad to do it when I am wrong, and I was wrong there. I said so before anyone else mentioned it and, when seven years later the leader of the opposition brings this before the house, I think he is threshing old straw. I do accept in the most complete terms the suggestion made by the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) with regard to the broad scope that should be given on the discussion of Bill No. 133 when it comes before the committee. But with regard to his remarks on this motion, I say that the rules of the house cannot be extended by anything I say. Let there be no misunderstanding of that point whatever. A decision of the house has been taken on that matter, and I do not expect it to be reversed. Should it be reversed, of course, I shall be glad to comply with the rules of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Brooke Claxton: That Bill No. 133, an act respecting national defence, and Bill No. 134, an act to amend the Militia Pension Act and change the title thereof, be referred to the special committee appointed to consider Bill No. 133, an act respecting national defence, and that the committee be empowered to consider the said bills.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, we have had
excellent co-operation from hon. members,

but I would hope that we might have the unanimous consent of the house to refer these bills to the committee which has been set up. I think that is the wish of all hon. members.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, April 18, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Claxton-Mr. Dion in the chair:
That it is expedient to present a bill to provide for the payment and distribution of prize money out of prize moneys presently and prospectively in the consolidated revenue fund.
Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, if hon. members would permit I think it would be desirable that we get first reading of this bill today, so that it can be distributed and perhaps dealt with tomorrow. If it were given second reading, then it could be referred to the same committee, and that would be our intention. I can make a brief statement if hon. members wish, but I think in view of the lateness of the hour it may be better if hon. members would agree to adopt the course I have suggested.


George Randolph Pearkes: There is no objection to the distribution of this prize money, but there are objections I think to the method by which it is being distributed. Will the minister say whether the same objectionable methods that were followed a couple of years ago will be adopted again?


Brooke Claxton: I would not make that admission, Mr. Chairman, but the method proposed is intended to be similar to that indicated a year ago. The purpose of the bill is, of course, to provide for the distribution of money which is either in the consolidated revenue fund, or which will come to it from the United Kingdom as prize money, payable in accordance with an agreement worked out between the various countries of the commonwealth.
This institution of prize money is a very old one as the member for Nanaimo has pointed out before. Indeed it dates back as far as the thirteenth century. At that time there were no organized naval forces, and prize money was paid to encourage adventurous privateers to join in the defence of the country in time of war. When the royal navy came to be organized, the possibility of prize money was one of the inducements which led men to join up. It has now been found, certainly in the United Kingdom, that prize money today is an anachronism; it is out of date. The United Kingdom has decided to pay

prize money for the last time in respect of the second world war to personnel of the navy, and to pay a proportion of the prize money earned into the benevolent fund of the Royal Air Force. In Canada we have made no decision yet.
The bill which will be introduced if the present resolution is adopted will propose a method of payment, and I would suggest to hon. members that we could discuss the whole matter better if we had the bill before us. I might just say this, that the amount involved for Canada is of the order of $2,500,000. There has never been prize money paid in Canada as a decision of the Canadian government. The prize money that was paid after world war I was paid under an imperial statute by royal proclamation. It included personnel of the Royal Canadian Navy, as well as the personnel of the other navies of the commonwealth. There never has been any undertaking to pay prize money in Canada. The reason why prize money was instituted as an adjunct to pay has long ceased to be in existence because the pay of the personnel of members of the Royal Canadian Navy is on terms corresponding to that of the army and the air force. The suggestion that prize money was necessary as a kind of compensation for the loss of possible earnings has ceased to exist, particularly in Canada, where our benefits to veterans are on a more favourable basis than in any other country. Moreover, the payment of prize money to individuals of the navy would discriminate against members of the army and the air force who had similar conditions of service, similar rates of pay, similar pensions and who, in every respect, had about the same sort of conditions.
I would hope, Mr. Chairman, if it is possible, to have the resolution carried and the bill given first reading so that we could consider it tomorrow.


George Randolph Pearkes: There is just one question I should like to ask arising out of what the minister has said. Is there any intention to give a portion of this to the army benevolent fund?


Brooke Claxton: No.


George Randolph Pearkes: You referred to distribution.


Brooke Claxton: No.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Claxton thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 221, to provide for the payment and distribution of prize money.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
War Veterans Allowance Act



WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE ACT


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 180, to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1946.


Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, I think there is likely to be some discussion on this bill, and some desire on the part of at least some of the members that it should be referred to a committee. It being now five minutes to eleven, I would ask you to call it eleven o'clock and that I be permitted to adjourn the debate.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I do not want to enter into the discussion at this late hour, Mr. Speaker, but we had a full discussion on the resolution. I am sure there were nearly twenty-five speeches, although it is true that some of them were quite short. The two items contained in the bill are extremely simple. There is nothing complicated about either of them. If there had been, I would certainly have asked that a committee be created to study them. But these two points are so simple that I am sure that at another sitting the committee of the whole could deal with them quite adequately; and if the house would agree tonight, I should like to see the bill pass second reading, if possible.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Percy Ellis Wright: No, Mr. Speaker. I should like to comply with the minister's wish but I think there was a matter which was not decided finally when we were discussing the bill in the first place, especially with respect to the pensions for widows of veterans of the imperial army who had served less than twenty years in Canada but who, under the act as it stands at the present time, will not receive a pension. I think that this matter requires further discussion. As a matter of fact, I think there should be some amendments. If the minister is not prepared to discuss them in a committee, I feel that probably we would have to move some amendment on second reading, in committee, or on third reading of the bill. I therefore feel that I could not consent to have the bill given second reading at this time. I therefore move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
2564

Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Tomorrow the first item will be this bill on prize money which has just passed first reading; then Bill No. 210, to amend the Customs Tariff; Bill No. 82, to amend the Criminal Code; and if there is time left, Bill No. 180, to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1946.


George Randolph Pearkes: We shall have that bill with regard to prize money, shall we?


Alphonse Fournier: I understand so.


George Randolph Pearkes: We have not received it yet.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It will be distributed in the morning.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 17, 1950