1950-06-15

Mr. E. T. Applewhaite (Skeena) moved:: That the report of the joint committee on the library of parliament, presented on June 6, 1950, be concurred in.


Mr. Jean Frangois Pouliol (Temiscouala):: Before this motion passes I should like to say a word about the committee business of the house. Yesterday we heard the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) complaining about his lack of ubiquity, but he himself asked for the formation of many committees, and he has been caught in his own trap.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 309, to amend the Official Secrets Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, the bill will provide four amendments to the Official Secrets Act. First, it will extend the expression "office under His Majesty" to include employees of commissions, corporations and other agencies of the crown. Second, it will give an extraterritorial effect to the act by making it applicable to offences committed outside of Canada by Canadian citizens, or to persons who in another country have communicated information which they obtained during the time that they owed allegiance to Canada. Third, it will increase the penalties under the act, and fourth, it will also remove any doubt that persons charged under the act for offences against the act under part XV of the Criminal Code relating to summary convictions may be fingerprinted.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first
time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	What was the total amount of arrears of income tax due, by provinces, as of March 31, 1950?
2.	Of such amount, how much was in arrears respectively for (a) 1 year to 7 years inclusive; (b) 8 years to 15 years inclusive; (c) 20 years; (d) over 20 years?


Mr. McCann:: 1. As of the 15th March, 1950, the latest date to which collection statistics are available, the arrears of income tax by provinces (individuals and corporations) assessed and
unpaid were as follows:
Province	Total Arrears
Prince Edward Island	$	912,417
Nova Scotia	 2,980,103
New Brunswick	 1,977,567
Quebec	 21,214,662
Ontario	 31,590,932
Manitoba	 3,395,417
Saskatchewan	 2,975,696
Alberta	 5,204,980
British Columbia
(including Yukon)	 11,653,369

2. Collection statistics of the taxation division are not maintained in such a manner as will permit specific answers being given to this part of the question. The following information is, however, furnished:
Amounts in arrears less than 1 year:
Prince Edward Island	$	295,108
Nova Scotia	 1,396,517
New Brunswick	 968,406
Quebec	 12,967,175
Ontario	 14,548,270
Manitoba	 1,685,901
Saskatchewan	 2,075,540
Alberta	 3,223,042
British Columbia
(including Yukon)	 7,314,200


$44,474,159 HOUSE OF COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
Questions
Amounts in arrears from 1 to 5 years:
Prince Edward Island	$	615,584
Nova' Scotia	 1,438,374
New Brunswick	 830,330
Quebec	 6,756,739
Ontario	 14,495,385
Manitoba	 1,123,897
Saskatchewan	 848,837
Alberta	 1,912,687
British Columbia
(including Yukon)	 3,977,205
[Stage Direction]
Amounts in arrears over 5 years:
Prince Edward Island	$	1,725
Nova Scotia	 145,212
New Brunswick	 178,831
Quebec	 1,490,748
Ontario	 2,547,277
Manitoba	 585,619
Saskatchewan	 51,319
Alberta	 69,251
British Columbia
(including Yukon)	 361,964

Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: 1.	Who writes the feature in Canada's Health and Welfare known as "Dietary Ditties?"
Specifically, who wrote No. 37, in volume 5, No. 8. of May, 1950, which reads as follows: "When work piles so high you can't see and you feel you've been shoved up a tree, you won't lose your wit, or fly into a fit, if you're eating your vitamin B?"
2.	What did this poetry cost, including the cost of the accompanying cut?


Mr. Martin:: "Dietary Ditties", a little
humorous device for teaching simple nutrition lessons, appears regularly in Canada's Health and Welfare. It is written by members of the staff of the nutrition division, usually in their own time.
The cost of each illustration is approximately $20. It is impossible to estimate the cost of printing because it represents a very small fraction of the cost of producing a single page of the magazine by offset lithography.
Numerous requests have been received by the department for permission to republish "Dietary Ditties". For instance, the United States national publicity council for health and welfare services called attention in its monthly bulletin to this feature as an interesting way of teaching simple nutrition lessons; this resulted in a great many requests for use in house organs and health education publications. In Canada "Dietary Ditties" is

being used by a large number of weekly newspapers and house organs, such as Confederation Life Bulletin, Toronto; Hydro News (Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario); National Labour Journal, Ottawa; the house organ of the Rubfoerset Company Limited, Gravenhurst, Ontario, etc.


TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES    USE OF U.S. AIRPORTS IN NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Higgins:: Are landing fees charged Trans-Canada Air Lines planes for the use of Harmon field, the United States air base at Stephenville, and the air field at the United States naval base at Argentia, Newfoundland?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Yes. Landing fees are charged in accordance with tariffs established by the United States armed services and/or the Canadian Department of Transport.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Malihews:: 1.	What was the number of visitors to each of the four largest Canadian national parks for the calendar year 1949?
2.	What was the number for each park in each month, June to September inclusive, 1949?


Mr. Prudham:: 1. Jasper 			. 84,292
Banff 			. 454,902
Prince Albert ...		. 52,403
Riding Mountain		. 294,693
2.	June	JulyJasper 	10,210	31,469Banff 	57,537	140,570Prince Albert 	8,727	22,221Riding Mountain ...	40,884	106,103August	SeptemberJasper 	26,944	9,808Banff 	90,755	47,750Prince Albert 	13,931	3,661Riding Mountain ...	84,100	28,773


JAPANESE PEACE TREATY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Press dispatches indicate that the conference of eight British commonwealth nations held last month in the United Kingdom to discuss the terms of a peace treaty with Japan has now been concluded. Can the minister tell us when it will be possible for us to have a report on the results of the conference?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The conference to which the hon. member refers was not so much a conference as a meeting of commonwealth representatives in the form of a working party to continue the discussions carried on at Colombo of what might be included in a Japanese peace treaty. The meeting took place in London, and was attended by a Canadian representative, our alternate on the Far Eastern commission. It has been completed, and possibly I may be able to make a report on some aspects of the discussion when my estimates come up in the very near future.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he can tell the house what further legislation the government expects to bring down during the present session. I noticed that another bill was introduced today.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I think we now have everything we have in mind either before this house or in the other place. I should not like to make a firm commitment, but I think that is so. At this moment I do not remember anything we have considered that is not already before this house or the other place.



TRUST COMPANIES ACT


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 307, to amend the Trust Companies Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon the house was good enough to give unanimous consent to first reading of this bill, and a companion bill, 308, to amend the Loan Companies Act. My reason for asking for that was that the banking and commerce committee is now sitting, and I am anxious to have these two bills referred to it, as was done with the bills amending the insurance law.
In the case of the bill amending the Trust Companies Act, now before the house, while that act was rather extensively revised in 1947, a few further amendments appear desirable at this time in order to bring the investment powers of the trust companies in line with the amendments made in the case of insurance companies. Some further technical
Trust Companies Act
amendments are also required. It also appeared appropriate to clarify or correct some of the existing provisions.
. Perhaps it might be convenient if I dealt with the Loan Companies Act now in my explanatory statement. It is a companion bill, and here again the amendments are very similar to those made to the Trust Companies Act. They relate to the investment powers, and the purpose is to bring them in line with the amended powers to which I have referred. As in the case of foe insurance company bills, the superintendent of insurance will be available before the banking and commerce committee to give detailed explanations of the proposed amendments.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the suggestion of the minister is a wise one. I understand that the amendments have been prepared in conjunction with officials of the department, and that we shall have the advantage of having them available before the committee.


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


Douglas Charles Abbott: the second reading of Bill No. 308, to amend the Loan Companies Act.


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


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, June 14, consideration in committee of Bill No. 302, respecting defence supplies and projects- Mr. Howe-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Howard Charles Green: How will the money be obtained that is required to carry out the operations under this bill? Will it come from the estimates submitted by the Department of Trade and Commerce, or from those of the Department of National Defence?


Mr. Howe:: Since the inception of civilian buying the practice has been that the requisition is accompanied by a certificate of encumbrance on the estimates of the armed services. In other words, we get a requisition to procure a certain supply, and at the same time we get a certificate of encumbrance

Defence Supplies
from the- Department of National Defence making the cost of that supply a charge on the defense estimates.


Howard Charles Green: Then the amounts would appear in the estimates for the present fiscal year under the Department of National Defence?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: Certain power is also taken in connection with the construction of ships for other departments. How would that money be provided?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is provided in exactly the same way; that is, any requisition on the Minister of Trade and Commerce for the procurement of any supply has to be accompanied by a certificate of encumbrance charged on the estimates of the department making the requisition. The funds of the Canadian Commercial Corporation are used in connection with transactions where payment is made on delivery-that is, transactions on behalf of foreign governments, or for stockpiling purposes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wonder if the minister would now be good enough to answer the question I have asked previously. Would he give us an illustration of a case where he could not carry out the requirements of the defence department with the ordinary powers he now has, and in which these new powers are needed? I have been asking for that, but I have never got it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If there were any new powers under this legislation I could give the explanation, but no power is contained in this bill that the Minister of Trade and Commerce or his predecessor the minister of munitions and supply has not had since 1939.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not think the minister should go on singing that old song. We understand each other, I think. I understand what the minister means when he says he is not getting new powers, but in point of fact the powers contained in the munitions and supply act have been hardly availed of at all in these last years, as the minister in effect has admitted. I am now asking what there is the minister cannot do without the powers under the munitions and supply act, which would make this new legislation necessary. In other words, why can he not go into the market in the ordinary course of business and with the ordinary powers with which he is clothed? Why are these new powers necessary? I hope the minister will give me an answer and not fall back on that old hair-splitting device he has used. He is much too big for that.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. Could we not discuss the powers of the minister under section 3?


Some hon. Members:: No.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Well, I do not know that I care very much whether the discussion is on section 1 or on section 3, but I thought section 1 was the place to ask general questions, and I have already asked this question once or twice. I am sure the minister would just as soon answer it under section 1, and he would be just as unwilling to answer it under section 3 as he is now.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What my hon. friend is asking is why the purchase of defence supplies requires any powers whatever, other than the power to make the purchase. I think that is wha't he has in mind. He speaks of new powers, but there are no new powers contained in this bill. I wish he would see eye to eye with me on that, because as a matter of fact the powers contained in this bill have been in the legislation under which the appropriate minister has been operating, and they are the only authority he has or has had for defence purchasing.


Howard Charles Green: You mean the Department of
Munitions and Supply Act?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. Let us say we will depend upon the ordinary purchasing technique, and place a contract for a very urgent unit of defence. The position will be like any contract placed by the Department of Public Works or any other department; there is no way to compel delivery on time. Perhaps my hon. friend is not as familiar with government purchasing as I am, but I can assure him that there is a tendency on the part of contractors to feel that the government is a very good and kind client and will not be too rough if he does not finish on time, whereas the same contractor may have a private buyer who is pretty rough, so he will do the last mentioned job first. In other words the government is apt to take second place to private contractors if we do not have this power to demand priority. The same situation exists with respect to supplies. At the moment supplies are fairly easy and this legislation probably would not be needed at this time. If this market tightens up much more, however, it may be very difficult to carry out defence purchases unless we have the power to requisition raw materials.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am interested in what the minister has just said, and I took down his words. He said probably the legislation would not be needed at this time; is that right?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to be sure I am quite correct. In other words the minister tells us that what was railroaded through yesterday is not necessary at this time. We told him yesterday that when we were satisfied there was an emergency and it became necessary we would be prepared to vote for it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend speaks of railroading. He seems to think that when anything is put through the house with which he does not agree, it is railroaded. As I remember the vote on second reading of this bill it was 127 in favour of the bill and 44 against. Is that railroading, or is that the will of the majority of the members of this house?


Mr. Ross (Souris):: It is the will of the
government whip.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think the
minister is quite right, and I will take back that word. I will say it was passed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I appreciate that.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I come back to the first point. The minister has said this is not necessary at this time, but I need not go over that again; as he says, the bill was given second reading yesterday. However, I do want to comment on the answer just given by the minister in which he said government contracts might be left until the last, and just completed when it was convenient. My comment on that would be, first, that I do not believe and I do not think anyone else in this house believes that anyone contracting or dealing with the Minister of Trade and Commerce would be inclined to proceed in that way, because the minister is a fairly forceful fellow, and he has a good deal of power. The second point, which I want to make as strongly as I can, is that if it were clear that the requirement of the minister was in connection with national defence, nothing would make me believe that there would be the difficulty which the minister represents. I want to repeat, and I hope the house will take note of the fact, that the minister says this legislation is probably not needed at the present time but that it may be needed at some future time. At some future time we would have been ready to vote for it, when it was needed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let me straighten out that
matter. I said the power to demand priority is needed at the present time. I said the power to requisition probably is not needed at the moment, but that we are moving into a tighter market and it might be needed at any time.
Defence Supplies


Jean-François Pouliot: I should like to know who, if anyone, might be called upon to substitute for the minister in handling these matters.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If a substitute is needed it will be the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce appointed by the Prime Minister for that purpose.


Jean-François Pouliot: The Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: I can tell the minister that I have had unpleasant experiences with the Canadian Commercial Corporation, and I wondered if that corporation would have anything to do with it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Canadian Commercial
Corporation assists the minister in carrying out the provisions of this act, but the minister has the responsibility.


Jean-François Pouliot: I know that, but my complaint is that we do not know the salaries paid to the officials of crown companies. I should like to have a chart showing the salaries and functions of the various officials of the Canadian Commercial Corporation as well as other crown companies. I am not an opponent of the government; I am a supporter of it. During the war and since, it has always been my stand in the house that the salaries paid these officials should be made known. We vote the money here, and we want to know how it is spent. These gentlemen may or may not be good, but at least we should know the amount that is paid to them by way of salary, or whatever it is called, and the amount that is paid for their travelling expenses.
I did receive a chart of another crown company showing the names of the personnel and their functions, but not their salaries. Why is it impossible to obtain that information? As a member of parliament representing a constituency in Canada I believe that all the members should be informed as to the amounts paid to civil servants, high or low.


Solon Earl Low: And presidents and past presidents of railways.


Jean-François Pouliot: I shall tell my hon. friend that I am a member of the railway committee, and when that matter came before the committee the members would not insist on having the information. That applies to the members of the hon. gentleman's group as well, because they did not insist on having that information. I am bound therefore by the decision of my colleagues who were members of that committee.


Mr. Knowles:: Surely that does not bind the rest of us in this house.

Defence Supplies


Jean-François Pouliot: It does not bind the rest of the house, but as a member of the committee I am informing the house what happened. It is all public knowledge. The members are free to ask whatever questions they desire, but in this matter I do not want anyone in the civil service to do otherwise than respect our parliamentary institutions and parliament as a whole. There seem to be two categories of people, members of parliament whose salary is mentioned in the newspaper as being too high, and men rendering a public service whose salaries are not disclosed. I am not attacking them, but it is only fair that we should know how much they cost the country. I am asking the minister if he will be kind enough to give us a chart of the Canadian Commercial Corporation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, it has not been the policy of the government to disclose the salaries of employees of crown corporations engaged in commercial enterprises. Such corporations are working in a competitive field, and to disclose the salary of a first-class man is usually to invite competing firms to bid for his service and overbid the government corporation. This rule has been applied for years to Canadian National Railways with the endorsation of this House of Commons. Certainly in an enterprise such as the Polymer Corporation, which is in a highly competitive field, it would be unwise. Canadian Commercial Corporation has its own sources of revenue. The money paid to its employees is not voted by parliament but is earned through the activities of the corporation. For that reason I believe the usual practice should be followed, and the salaries of the employees not disclosed.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am sorry to disagree with the minister. He cannot complain about my intentions, because some years ago I paid him the greatest tribute ever paid to anyone in the House of Commons. I have a personal admiration for him, because I know he is a man of action. But with regard to what he has said, the work done by the Canadian Commercial Corporation was previously handled by the Department of Public Works. The salaries of the various officials of the Department of Public Works are made known in the public accounts. If the work was done previously by civil servants of the Department of Public Works, whose salaries were made public, I do not see why the same thing could not be done now that we have another organization that is working in mystery. I am against that sort of mystery with regard to finance. It was the stand of my greatgrandfather, who voted for the ninety-two resolutions for the establishment of responsible government. The stand of my grandfather and of my father has been my stand,

that we should know how the money is spent which we are called upon to vote. There is no man so important that he should live in a cloud of mystery.
I shall tell the minister something else, and in a most friendly manner: it is the members of parliament who are responsible for what is done by these crown corporations. If any one of my constituents comes to me and asks how much the president, general manager, or anyone else in the Canadian Commercial Corporation receives, and I am not in a position to answer him, I shall be remiss in my duty. It is because I do not want to be remiss in my duty that I am insisting upon this information. I know the minister has his own views on the matter, but I shall tell him that he can be sure the men who work in the Canadian Commercial Corporation will no more leave their jobs than those who work in any other government department, and whose salaries are mentioned in the public accounts. I believe that is a fair statement, and I do not make it to embarrass the minister. I am merely expressing a deep personal belief, that we should know all about the expenses. This prevents abuses. How many crimes are committed in the darkness of the night? Few are committed in daylight. When parliament does not know the amount of an expenditure, there may be abuses. People will not know about it, and it was for that reason I asked for the reform of the public accounts. It took me about two years to get it from the then minister of finance, Mr. Ilsley, but some amounts were not mentioned in the public accounts at that time. I insisted on that information, and finally the then minister of finance said he would give it to me. My demand was supported by Mr. MacNicol and Tommy Church. I pay tribute to my friends who are no longer here, but we did a good job in having the public accounts straightened out.
I am not opposed to the government; I support the government. I tell the minister that it is time to stop these crown companies; it is time to have responsibility. If we read the act we find it is the minister who is responsible, and he is responsible to the House of Commons. But if the Canadian Commercial Corporation does something, who will know about it? If the Bank of Canada does something, we have a report that means nothing. I have nothing to add, because I have expressed myself clearly on the subject.


Mr. Gibson:: Will the minister explain how the provision works out in the event that he exercises his authority to demand the delivery of certain products? Unquestionably

these suppliers will have commitments to private concerns, and it is possible that these private concerns would be occasioned a loss in a transaction of that kind, where the minister stepped in. I suggest it is quite proper the minister should step in where defence supplies are concerned, but is any provision made to take care of these private customers if a loss is actually occasioned?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If the government intervenes to prevent the delivery of a contract, that constitutes a force majeure, which is a good defence in any private contract. That defence was invoked during the war a good many times, and the defence was always upheld, when the delivery was prevented by the government's requisitioning of the materials.


Mr. Harkness:: I should like to ask the
minister a question in connection with a statement -which he has repeated several times, to the effect that this act, rather than adding to his powers, reduces them. Is it not a fact that the powers which the minister had and exercised under the Department of Munitions and Supply Act were due to a large extent to the fact that the War Measures Act was in effect, that the War Measures Act enabled the minister to exercise fully or completely the powers which were outlined in the Department of Munitions and Supply Act; that when the War Measures Act came to an end, the various safeguards and so forth provided for in the act which this present bill proposes to do away with, the Defence Purchases, Profits Control and Financing Act, 1939, came into effect and that when the War Measures Act ceased to be operative, the various safeguards provided for in the Defence Purchases, Profits Control and Financing Act, 1939, materially limited the powers outlined in the Department of Munitions and Supply Act? If that is so-and so far as I can see, it is-when we abolish the Department of Munitions and Supply Act and the Defence Purchases, Profits Control and Financing Act, 1939, and substitute this new act for them, it seems to me that in effect we have really given a considerable increase in powers.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Department of Munitions and Supply Act is an act of the parliament of Canada. It has exactly the same validity as the War Measures Act, which is also an act of the parliament of Canada. The Department of Munitions and Supply Act has never depended on the War Measures Act for its validity at any stage.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It was not a matter of its depending for its validity on the War Measures Act. My question was this. Was it not a fact that the existence of the War
Defence Supplies
Measures Act made it possible for the minister to exercise, you might say, fully or completely the powers laid down in the Department of Munitions and Supply Act? And when the War Measures Act came to an end, then the limitations imposed by the Defence Purchases, Profits Control and Financing Act, 1939, came into effect once more and served thereby to limit those powers.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend will read carefully the Department of Munitions and Supply Act, I think he will find that the provisions are made valid regardless of any other statute of the parliament of Canada.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I have forgotten something. It is that there are many Tories in the Canadian Commercial Corporation. They are there; they enjoy the office and they run the show. I challenge the members of the Conservative party to support my stand to have disclosure made of the names and salaries paid to these people. They will not move. They will not say a word because they are their own friends. They are not Liberals. They are Tories to the core, and this is why we have so much trouble from them.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will just be another minute, if I may have your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. I will not insist any more upon my point, but I will only say that if the minister fires the Tories from the Canadian Commercial Corporation and from the other crown companies, the country will then be able to breathe freely.


Mr. Graydon:: May I accept the challenge of the hon. member for Temiscouata with great pleasure and ask the minister if he will not produce to this committee the salaries and the names of these men in the Canadian Commercial Corporation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We will not.


Gordon Graydon: After all, because a man happens to belong to any particular party I do not think that fact gives him any reason to hide behind any kind of legislation. I agree with the hon. member for Temiscouata; I think that information ought to be produced to the committee. If the public pays a man a certain sum of money to do a job for the public, I do not think there is any reason under the sun why the public should not know who the man is, first of all, and, second, how much the public pays.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the hon. gentleman. Now I challenge the C.C.F. group and the Social Credit group, because there are some C.C.F.'ers and some Social Crediters in those

Defence Supplies
crown companies. I want them fired. I want only Liberals to enforce Liberal policies in those crown companies. Let us fire the Tories, let us fire the C.C.F.'ers and let us fire the Social Crediters so that we may have a real Liberal administration.


Mr. Hodgson:: I quite agree with the hon. member for Temiscouata. I happen to be the member who put on the order paper these questions asking for the salaries and the expenses of the officials of the crown corporations, and also of the C.N.R.; and I am the man who was refused the answer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The challenge that the hon. member for Temiscouata has thrown out is not one that anyone in this part of the house needs to respond to, because we have been asking for that sort of information all along. But I am interested in the barefaced admission by the hon. member for Temiscouata that he wants political patronage in the Canadian Commercial Corporation.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will tell the hon. member that he is greatly mistaken with regard to patronage. We have no patronage.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Oh, yes; you have. You have admitted it.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: On a question of privilege, I will tell the hon. member that the work that the supporter of the government does in any department is a burden; it is done not to his personal advantage but to the advantage and satisfaction of his constituents at large and to maintain peace and order in the community. There is no pay of any kind.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Mr. Chairman, I resent the remarks made by the hon. member for Temiscouata, to the effect that there is no patronage in the corporation under government control. There is patronage; it is done right in my own town of Lindsay, and I can prove it.


Mr. Fulton:: He wants more.


Jean-François Pouliot: I told you before that you were an exception.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. The bill before us is Bill No. 302, and we are dealing with clause 1, which reads:
1. This act may he cited as the Defence Supplies Act.
Shall clause 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Gordon Graydon: Is the hon. member for Temiscouata not going to press this thing to a conclusion, or is he just going to let it be dropped?	.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have said what I have to say.


Gordon Graydon: No. You have not said nearly as much as you have said on other occasions. Keep after him.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have said enough.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Gordon Graydon: You have our support. Don't let it drop now.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Gordon Graydon: You can't let it drop now.


Jean-François Pouliot: I fight to the last.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Gordon Graydon: Surrender.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have fought-


Gordon Graydon: Retreat.


Jean-François Pouliot: Never.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: Don't tell me that. I cannot accept it.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I do not think that this sort of amicable discussion should be carried on. All hon. members should address themselves to the chair, and should rise when they want to speak. This Canadian Commercial Corporation discussion is not quite in order on the first clause of this bill. I think it could more properly take place on item 423 of the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce, under whose jurisdiction the Canadian Commercial Corporation comes. I would therefore ask hon. members to make their remarks as relevant as possible to the clause which is under discussion.


Mr. Rowe:: We have had a lot of humorous banter back and forth, but I listened with keen interest to the hon. member for Temiscouata. I have been impressed by many of his remarks in this chamber. I know we all respect the long tradition of his family in parliamentary service. I listened intently to his remarks. I think they were well taken. I find myself in agreement with him a hundred per cent. If he had not risen to withdraw his earlier remarks, I would have thought it was only in keeping with his-


Louis-René Beaudoin: I will have to ask the hon. member to speak to the first clause of the bill. This has to stop somewhere. When the discussion goes out of order at one time or another, one hon. member must set the example and put the discussion back in order. It is difficult to decide at what time or at what point a discussion is completely out of order. I think hon. members

will agree that the discussion on the Canadian Commercial Corporation has been carried on too long and has been out of order. At this point I would ask hon. members to discuss clause 1 of the bill.


William Earl Rowe: Surely, Mr. Chairman, it is not out of order to suggest that the hon. member for Temiscouata is correct in asking that these records be tabled. In that connection I do wish to point out that while he referred to the opposition as not being too keen-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. On this first clause it is my duty to point out that it is out of order to ask that the records and salaries of the officials of the Canadian Commercial Corporation be tabled. That would more properly be done on the estimates. Under item 423, the first item of the Department of Trade and Commerce estimates, a general discussion can take place. The Canadian Commercial Corporation falls under that item; therefore its affairs can be discussed under that item, but not under this clause.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you, Dufferin-Simcoe; you are an antidote to the poison of Peel.


William Earl Rowe: I am sorry if the hon. member for Temiscouata, who has been here slightly longer than I have been, was out of order along with myself. I only wish to add that I hope the committee has taken cognizance of the fact that he said he wanted all the Conservatives on the crown corporations fired and all the Liberals retained, regardless of their efficiency.


Howard Charles Green: Earlier in the discussion I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce from what sources the money would be obtained for goods purchased, and he intimated that in most cases it would come from the money allotted to the Department of National Defence and, of course, in a minor degree from other departments, such as the Department of Public Works, and the Department of Transport, for which the minister could order ships and ship repairs. Are there any types of purchases in which the appropriation is from the minister's own department; in other words, instances in which the initiation of the purchase comes from the Department of Trade and Commerce? If so, of what types are those purchases?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Canadian Commercial Corporation is the purchasing agent for the Department of Trade and Commerce. Anything the Department of Trade and Commerce buys is paid for by that department to the Canadian Commercial Corporation under the appropriate item in the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce.
Defence Supplies


Howard Charles Green: I am referring to defence supplies. Will there be any defence supplies purchases which will be initiated by the Department of Trade and Commerce, either through the Canadian Commercial Corporation, or in any other way originating with the Department of Trade and Commerce?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know that any idea
originates with the Department of Trade and Commerce; but stockpiling and purchases are made from the funds of the Canadian Commercial Corporation. The funds are placed at its disposal by parliament. For instance, we have purchased tin, antimony and a few other items, for stockpiling purposes. These were paid for first by the funds of the Canadian Commercial Corporation which were later replaced by vote of parliament.


Howard Charles Green: Apparently certain goods are being purchased for stockpiling by the Canadian Commercial Corporation. What particulars does parliament get of these purchases, both as to the goods themselves and as to the amounts paid?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The item appears in the next departmental estimates. The money is refunded to the Canadian Commercial Corporation from a vote of parliament, usually after the event, because the need for stockpiling cannot always be anticipated.


Howard Charles Green: At what stage are we told what goods are being stockpiled? Are we given particulars of the amounts spent for this stockpiling, or is that simply included in the money appropriated for the Canadian Commercial Corporation, without any particulars being given?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The moneys at the disposal of the Canadian Commercial Corporation are a revolving fund to be used only for meeting the immediate needs of the Canadian government, and to be replaced from some source in due course. I have reported to the house purchases of tin and antimony, and the exact cost of the purchases, and the exact quantity purchased.


Howard Charles Green: How is that reported?


Clarence Decatur Howe: In the estimates.


Howard Charles Green: In the minister's estimates?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister give us any statement now as to the stockpiling that is being undertaken by the Canadian Commercial Corporation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can obtain the information; it is not before me at the moment. We have a fair amount of tin and a fair amount of antimony, and I think one or two other items. I do not know that there is any secret about it. I will get the information.

Defence Supplies


Howard Charles Green: Where does the Department of National Defence come into these stockpiling operations? I should like to know which department decides what goods must be stockpiled. Apparently the stockpiling is done for war purposes. I should like to know who decides what should be stockpiled, and, in particular, what part the Department of National Defence plays in the stockpiling.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Department of Trade and Commerce is the procurement agency for the armed services. If the department expects difficulty in carrying out its duties through shortages of raw materials, the Department of Trade and Commerce initiates the requisition for stockpiling. The treasury is always consulted to obtain its concurrence, and I feel quite sure that the Department of National Defence is consulted to obtain the concurrence of that department. It is quite easy to obtain that concurrence since it does not cost that department any money. The initiative comes through the Department of Trade and Commerce as the procurement agency.


Howard Charles Green: That is one siluation which should be covered in the legislation. A person would think that the Department of National Defence should have the authority to decide what goods are to be stockpiled, or at least should be formally associated with the Department of Trade and Commerce in that decision. But apparently the decision is made by the Department of Trade and Commerce, and I suppose in effect by the Canadian Commercial Corporation officials; and then the cabinet finds out about it. The minister says that the Department of National Defence would naturally not object, because they are not going to have to pay for the goods. I can see that there is some good judgment of human nature in that statement. Does the minister not think it would be wise to provide in this measure that the Department of National Defence at least be associated with the Department of Trade and Commerce in the purchasing of these goods? Apparently the only case in which the Department of Trade and Commerce acts on its own initiative is in connection with stockpiling, which is done through the Canadian Commercial Corporation. I understand that in connection with all other purchases there is a requisition from the Department of National Defence. What would be the objection to having the legislation call for a requisition from the Department of National Defence in the case of stockpiling?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know that there is any great objection, except that stockpiling involves far more than the direct needs of the
armed services. If this country cannot obtain tin, it is not only the production of munitions that stops; the production of anything made from steel or alloys of steel stops also. It is the duty of the Department of Trade and Commerce, as the procurement agency, to procure in a manner that anticipates shortages. The Department of National Defence should not have to decide what materials are involved in an item that they may ask the Department of Trade and Commerce to obtain. That is the business of the procurement agency.


Howard Charles Green: This bill deals only with defence supplies; it is called the Defence Supplies Act. I realize that goods must be stockpiled for other purposes, but where we have a bill dealing only with defence supplies there should be a provision written into it that the Department of National Defence must be associated in all stockpiling for defence purposes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not agree with my hon. friend. For instance, if the Department of National Defence requires so many uniforms a year, we know that in advance. The pattern is definite. It is part of the duty of the procurement agency to see that it is in position to get the cloth that is necessary. We know from experience that it is much easier to procure cloth in quantity than it is for individual items. We anticipate the needs of the services in procuring cloth as a temporary expedient. That is the ordinary business of a procurement agency. If we had to ask the Department of National Defence for permission to buy the ordinary things involved in procurement operations, I do not know just who in that department would be able to advise us on the matter.


Howard Charles Green: Drastic powers are provided in the bill for the requisitioning of supplies and for the establishing of priorities, and where those powers are used, surely the Department of National Defence should be made partlj responsible. What is the objection to writing into the bill that the Department of National Defence must be a party to such requisitions?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is not an objection; it is a lack of purpose in requiring concurrence. As I said, certain supplies are necessary to carry out the ordinary procurement duties of the department; so why should we ask anyone in the Department of National Defence whether it is wise to obtain them.


Howard Charles Green: You have the power now to
make ordinary purchases in the regular business way, but I am referring to the special powers being conferred on the Minister of Trade and Commerce without any reference

whatever to the Minister of National Defence. I suggest that it would be some safeguard of the people's rights if the Minister of National Defence were associated in the exercise of these drastic powers.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: A moment or two ago the minister said that it was easy to get the concurrence of the Department of National Defence because it does not cost that department any money. I think he was then referring to stockpiling. When the minister used that phrase, did he mean that at the moment they did not pay any money, or that the time never comes when they would have to pay? If he meant that, would the minister indicate the origin of the money that would be used to pay for these?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Any long-range stockpiling is
paid for by a vote passed by parliament. With month to month stockpiling, such as that in anticipation of an order for uniforms, the Department of National Defence would pay for the cloth when they pay for the uniforms. I would not think of requiring the permission of the Department of National Defence in connection with a purchase of cloth for uniforms. The two departments work closely in procurement matters, and the Department of National Defence would likely know that we are taking those steps; but to get formal permission is another matter.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I understand that there is a revolving fund for the use of the Canadian Commercial Corporation, but I have forgotten whether it is set up in the statute.


Clarence Decatur Howe: A fund of $10 million is set
up by statute, and is drawn on as required. The Canadian Commercial Corporation does not keep the $10 million in the bank; it has a drawing account on the treasury up to $10 million.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does that
operate like the transport stores act? That is to say, to the extent that purchases are taken up by the department under their estimates, the fund is used?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Section 3-Powers of minister.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Yesterday, when answering
comments on the second reading, the minister said that the power to require deliveries within a certain time applied, as I understood him, only to those who had contracts for the supply of materials.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.
Defence Supplies


Edmund Davie Fulton: That was not my interpretation of this section.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What section is my hon. friend referring to?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am referring to section 3,
paragraph (f). Under that paragraph the minister would have power to compel deliveries within a certain time limit, even though the person to whom he goes has not a formal contract for the supply of the goods.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is quite correct. My
reference to contracts was in connection with paragraph (e), which reads:
(e) require any person who is obligated by any contract to deliver any defence supplies or to construct or carry out a project or to furnish any services, to perform that contract in such priority to that person's other business and within such period of time, not shorter than the period, if any, stipulated in such contract, as the minister may specify.
That concerns priorities, but a requisition may be made on anyone who has stock in hand.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But when you exercise that
right you also have the right under (f) to set a time limit within which he must deliver the goods which are being requisitioned; is that correct?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The requisition would refer to a stock in hand, and it is assumed that the requisition would be complied with immediately.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I want to get that clear. The minister says that the requisition would only be in reference to a stock in hand, but I want to get a clear understanding of just what power the minister has. As I read paragraph (f) the minister has the power to go to someone who has a stockpile, or has in his possession or control goods which the minister desires to possess or use for some defence contract, and he can say to that person, "I make you an offer of a specific amount for those goods, and you must deliver at that price and within such and such a time."


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; that is correct.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You have that power under (f).


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Subsection 1 (c) of section 3 reads:
Construct or otherwise acquire, carry out, develop, repair and maintain any project.
In the preceding section "project" is defined as meaning a building, airdrome, airport, dockyard, fortification, road or other work required for the purposes of defence. Will the minister suggest a limitation of any kind on that? The minister may say that

Defence Supplies
there are certain financial limitations, but is there anything to prevent the minister from making a contract involving very large commitments for the government?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, there certainly is not. If
we have a requisition to create a project for the Department of National Defence, and the requisition has come to the minister in the normal way, it does not matter whether it is for $1 million or $50 million; the duty of the procurement agency is to go and procure the project.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not
quite clear on this. My understanding is that this is a direct power to the minister. Did I understand the minister to say a moment ago that the projects would be only such as came from a department and within the limitations of the funds of that department?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Certainly.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then what is the distinction between that and what we were talking about a few moments ago, where the minister's department went ahead on its own? Was that merely with regard to stockpiling?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is all.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then these other projects are all projects within the four corners, so to speak, of the estimates of the Department of National Defence.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: Subsection 1 (c) of section 3 certainly does not restrict the minister to projects which are required by the Department of National Defence.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Then what does clause (d) of section 2 mean? Will my hon. friend read that?


Howard Charles Green: Section 2 (d) reads:
"Project" means a building, airdrome, airport, dockyard, fortification, road or other work required for the purposes of defence.
The defect is that there is no provision that it must be requisitioned by the Department of National Defence. There is no provision that this power can be exercised only upon requisition by or with the concurrence of the Department of National Defence. The minister has already said that he does not have to get the concurrence of the Department of National Defence for stockpiling, and under this clause he does not require the concurrence of the Department of National Defence for the construction of a project. Is it the intention that the Minister of Trade and Commerce shall be
[Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood) .1
able to go ahead with a project without the concurrence of the Department of National Defence?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The funds must be voted by parliament in some department. I do not know that there is anything to prevent the minister or the Canadian Commercial Corporation from proceeding with a project that is voted in his own department. As I said before, the minister and the Canadian Commercial Corporation are agents of the department in all procurement matters. One of the duties of the minister is to procure for the Department of National Defence.


Howard Charles Green: That is only one of them?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Then the minister makes it perfectly clear that the Department of Trade and Commerce can initiate and carry through a defence project without any request from or concurrence by the Department of National Defence?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, to carry out any project involving money the Department of Trade and Commerce has to get an order in council of the government of Canada. The Minister of National Defence is a member of the government, and I assume if it were a defence project we could hardly get approval unless it had the endorsement of the Minister of National Defence.


Howard Charles Green: I think the minister's answer to that question makes it perfectly clear that the Department of Trade and Commerce is intruding on the work of the Department of National Defence, and is assuming responsibilities which should be assumed by the Department of National Defence. I suggest to the committee that there certainly should be a provision written into the legislation that defence projects can be entered upon only with the concurrence of the Department of National Defence.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to add a word on this point. It seems to me that the minister is very ungenerous in not realizing that we are trying to help him to improve this bad measure.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Amateur help.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wonder if the minister does not agree that it would be sensible to have something in the act to indicate that these projects come from the Department of National Defence. From the point of view of anyone reading the measure and not having the benefit of all this conversation and discussion, there is certainly no limitation on the face of it. I would have-thought it would be desirable in the definition.

clause, section 2(d), to have something to indicate that these projects, which he distinguishes from stockpiling, would come from the Department of National Defence. I would have thought it very sensible to have that written into the act.


Howard Charles Green: In effect the Minister of Trade and Commerce decides what is a defence project, and I submit that is none of his business.


Clarence Decatur Howe: To tell the truth, I do not think it is any of your business either.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to raise a point having to do with the power to requisition and compel delivery within a time and at a price that the minister specifies. You will notice that subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (f) of subsection 1 of section 3 provides that there may be a reference to the exchequer court with respect only to the matter of price, and that the court shall not have power to extend the period of time for delivery. That seems to me to be a very harsh provision. I can appreciate the feeling which probably lay behind the making of that provision; if power were given to appeal to the exchequer court as to the time within which deliveries must be made, then the delivery of some essential and vital material might be delayed pending the outcome of an appeal. Let us remember, however, that section 8 provides:
Every person who contravenes or fails to observe any provision of this act or of any regulation or order is guilty of an offence and is liable upon summary conviction or conviction upon indictment to a fine not exceeding $5,000.
It may be that the requirement made by the minister as to the time within which delivery must be made is unreasonable. Nevertheless in his view it is essential to secure the material. He issues an order for delivery within ten days, and it is next to a physical impossibility for the order to be complied with. Every effort may be made to comply with it, but it may be that the material is delivered not in ten days but in two weeks. That man has committed a contravention of an order made under this act and is liable to a fine of $5,000, but there can be no appeal to the exchequer court on the question of time. The only appeal is on the question of price.
It seems to me to be a most unwarranted provision to put in the act. The minister is taking sweeping powers. I do not propose to prolong the debate on that point, because we had it on second reading and the house decided yesterday by its vote that he should have these powers. The bill gives him sweeping powers, and it may be that they will be exercised arbitrarily in what the minister conceives to be the interest of the
Defence Supplies
country and in the interest of procuring the supplies quickly. I can quite see that that may happen. This man against whom an order for delivery within a time limit has been made finds that it is a physical impossibility for him to comply with the order, and he is guilty of a technical breach thereof and liable to a fine of $5,000. He cannot go to court and say that it was impossible for him to comply, because the exchequer court has no right to make any order or finding with respect to the time of delivery. I ask the minister if it would not be possible, without seriously interfering with his right to compel delivery within such time as he specifies, nevertheless to permit an appeal to the exchequer court to embrace the question of time, so that, delivery having been made, at least a man could defend his liability to a penalty by establishing in the exchequer court that the time specified by the minister was not reasonable under the circumstances.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate, but the defence of a nation sometimes requires a government to be harsh. In England it is harsh to the extent of taking young men out of the normal walks of life and putting them in the army for a period of time. That has not been thought necessary in this country, for which I am very glad; but if the government had to be harsh and take material away from a man a little sooner than he would like to deliver it, that is just too bad, but it does not disturb me in the least. I have been administering this act for the last ten years, and I have not been harsh to an extent that has caused any great repercussions in the country. But we have been firm; if we needed something for defence we got it, and we got it when we needed it. That will continue to be the policy of the government, in spite of my hon. friend.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Let me make it quite clear,
Mr. Chairman. I said I accepted the fact that the minister held the view that he must have power to compel delivery. In spite of the insinuation the minister has attempted to convey, however, I am not objecting to the fact that it is necessary to insist upon deliveries. As the minister says, sometimes it is necessary to be harsh when the defence of the country is at stake. All right; he has taken power to compel delivery, but I say he should not go further and take away from the man against whom the order is made any right of recourse to the court in connection with the penalty he may incur because he has been physically unable to comply with the order. The order has been complied with as soon as possible, but not within the time limit laid down. The

Defence Supplies
difference may be only a few days, in spite of the best efforts of the man to make delivery on time. Nevertheless that will involve him in liability to a penalty of up to $5,000, and he has no right to appeal to the court on the question of time. I distinctly asked the minister if he did not think that, without cutting down his power to compel delivery, he could grant the subject the right to appeal to the exchequer court after delivery had been made, on this question of penalty, and that was all I said. I do not think it is necessary for the minister to insinuate that we are trying to make it impossible for him to obtain materials vitally needed for national defence. .


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am a layman, and my hon. friend is a lawyer, so I will ask him this. Does he know any way of collecting a penalty or a fine except through the courts?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, I do not know of any way to collect a fine except through the courts, but the exchequer court is precluded from making any finding with respect to the time of delivery, whether or not the time fixed by the minister was reasonable. A man may exceed that time limit by one day; if he does, he is liable to a penalty of up to $5,000, and the exchequer court is specifically excluded by subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (f) from making any finding with respect to time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Then may I ask my hon. friend, as a lawyer, another question? How much of a fine does he think a court would assess against a man for being one day late in making delivery?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not care if it assesses a fine of only $1; the principle is there. The man may be two weeks late, but the court cannot go into the reasonableness or otherwise of the time limit; it is precluded from doing so.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can assure my hon. friend that it is their custom to do so.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not when the statute specifically says the court may not make any finding with respect to time. I am quite sure the minister does not intend to suggest that the court would deliberately ignore the terms of the statute. However, I have made the point and raised the question, and apparently the minister thinks there is nothing to it. I have asked whether he did not think, without limiting his power to obtain delivery, he could nevertheless permit the subject to appeal to the court on the question of time with respect to the penalty he might otherwise incur.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I submit that in order to have a fine imposed a man must be brought into one of the courts of the land. The department makes out its case against him, and he presents his defence. I have never known a Canadian court to impose a fine when the person before the court had a reasonable defence, and I do not think my hon. friend has known of that either.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But there is no defence under the terms of this statute. His defence is taken away from him.


Howard Charles Green: This is the key section of the act, and it might make for more progress if we took it up clause by clause. I want to ask a question about section 3(l)(d), which reads:
. . . arrange for the performance of commercial and professional services.
That would seem to be a power which can be exercised in the normal course of business. Can the minister give us examples to indicate the necessity of having that provision written into the act?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am not suggesting that the machinery would not function without that section, but the desire is to make perfectly plain what are the powers of the minister in connection with procurement for the armed services. We wish to make it clear that it is within the power of the minister to obtain commercial or professional services if they should be required. Commercial services might be the storage of material. Professional services might be an independent opinion on a design problem, or various other services.


Howard Charles Green: That means power to go out and hire somebody to do a special job; is that it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is it. The transportation of personnel would be a case in point.


Howard Charles Green: Then in connection with paragraph (f) there is this provision:
. . . require any person who produces, deals in or has in his possession or control any materials or articles needed for the completion of a contract with respect to which a requirement under the authority of paragraph (e) has been issued, or needed for completion of defence supplies or a project being constructed or carried out by a government department, the Canadian Commercial Corporation or any company to which the Government Companies Operation Act applies . . .
That would appear to be a good deal wider than simply giving the Minister of Trade and Commerce power to carry out a defence project. Why is the provision worded in such a broad way? It says, "project being constructed or carried out by a government department," which might mean any one of the various government departments. Why is the terminology so broad?



IS. 1950

Clarence Decatur Howe: Other agencies take part
in procurement. For example, Canadian Arsenals are a very important factor in procurement. Today Canadian Arsenals are making all the guns used by the army, and various other munitions; and the act should properly apply to them. If they find it impossible to carry on their work through lack of supplies, they should be able to requisition supplies through the minister. It applies to various crown companies accustomed to take part in the procurement of defence supplies. The Department of Mines and Technical Surveys has a part in it as well. It usually procures the minerals. In the last war they made certain optical instruments in a factory that was operated by that department. This clause is built to fit the machinery that was found to be necessary to carry out the defence procurement duties in the last war.


Howard Charles Green: In clause (e) there is a provision that if the supplier of the goods does not agree to the price set by the minister, the dispute can be referred to the exchequer court. Under the Department of Munitions and Supply Act, as originally passed in 1939, disputes were settled by arbitration, which is the normal peacetime way of settling disputes of this kind. I suggest we should now go back to the arbitration method of settling the price, rather than put the person who has been compelled to supply these goods to the expense of fighting the case in the exchequer court. I believe this exchequer court provision was put into the Department of Munitions and Supply Act in 1940 or 1943, and I am confident that the result of that change was that very few, if any, people would go to the expense and trouble of going to the exchequer court. It seems unfair to put that burden on them. Why would it not be better to use the ordinary arbitration machinery?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is not usual in government contracts of any kind to use arbitration machinery. The public works contracts do not provide for arbitration. The usual method of collecting a claim against the government is to refer it to the exchequer court.
I can say to my hon. friend that, so far as requisitioning is concerned, if any contractor has a case that will stand up in exchequer court, it is unlikely that he will find it necessary to go to the court to get proper compensation.


Howard Charles Green: I do not think it is fair that in peacetime people should be put to that expense. Why not use the simple system of arbitration? The government is not going to be hurt very much by arbitration. It is certainly much more desirable from the point of
Defence Supplies
view of a person who has been forced to turn over those supplies. It is not a case of ordinary purchases, and there is no difficulty about such transactions. This section applies to a case where the minister has forced the person to supply the goods. It does seem that where drastic power of that sort has been exercised, the person against whom it has been used should be given every reasonable opportunity to have a fair price set by the simplest method. Going to the exchequer court is a complicated business, for example, for any firm in British Columbia. It may not be so difficult for a firm in Montreal, but for firms in the distant parts of the country an exchequer court action is an expensive procedure. I do suggest that the minister should give some consideration to substituting the arbitration procedure.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, if that were done it would mean instituting a new practice.


Howard Charles Green: That power was given in the original Department of Munitions and Supply Act.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, but we changed the act as soon as we realized how we were differing from ordinary government practice. It was changed in the first revision of the act. It would have established a new procedure for the administering of government contracts.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: One of the
things for which we gave the minister credit was that he adopted a lot of new procedures. Speaking seriously for a moment, I think there is great force in what the member for Vancouver-Quadra has said. I put it to the minister that when he was in business the last thing he wanted to do was go before the exchequer court. That court is familiar with tax matters and things of that sort, but not with this subject. The sensible course would be that advocated by the member for Vancouver-Quadra. I see no reason why we have to follow slavishly the established practice and the minister has not done that; he has been a pioneer. I hope the minister will consider the suggestion, because I do know the same view is held by businessmen.
The minister made an answer, which he felt was a fair answer, to the member for Kamloops, about the conviction. The member asked whether anyone charged with dealing in goods would get a fair hearing in court. The basis upon which the member for Kamloops and I make that suggestion is the understanding that under the wording of section 3 (f) all the court will have to be told is that the minister said this was fair and reasonable, and the man did not carry

Defence Supplies
it out. Would it not be fair to let this section stand and ascertain from the Department of Justice whether or not that is their interpretation of it? If they take the minister's view, then this section will not be as bad as we thought; but if they do not take his view, then the ground is cut from under what the minister said. After a man got into court, the minister seemed to feel he should have a fair run for his money. We believe that is not the meaning of this paragraph (f).


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Minister of Justice has already passed on this act, just as he passes on every act that comes before the House of Commons. What does my hon. friend think is the meaning of the act? The crown carries no more weight before a court than the other party to the dispute. The court is there to see that there is equity as between the crown and the subject.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: But that is cut down under the statute.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The court cannot do that when the statute itself says by implication that that defence is not open to the subject. Then the ordinary equitable jurisdiction, if you like, of the court is removed because it is bound by the terms of the statute.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, but what is it bound to do? It is bound to impose a fine not exceeding $5,000. It can impose a fine of one cent technically, if the court thinks conditions warrant it. I may say that from the experience we have had in trying to enforce penalties under orders of this kind, that is about what the court usually does.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Paragraph (g) of this section states:
(g) require any person to furnish such information respecting defence supplies dealt in by him or projects of a type executed by him or respecting his production and other facilities relating thereto in such time and manner as the minister may specify.
It seems to me that this paragraph gives the minister power to require from any dealer in goods any information of any kind. Last week the Minister of National Defence told us that the army alone holds something like 170 million or 180 million pieces of equipment of one sort or another. The equipment required by the defence department covers practically every business which one can imagine existing in the country. It would seem to me that under those circumstances any business in the country could be required by the minister to furnish any information he wants to secure. Perhaps that is the intention of this section; I do not know. Will the minister tell us whether that is the intention of the section, and if not, what the intention is?
[Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood) .1


Clarence Decatur Howe: The intention is that all information that is needed in connection with defence preparations shall be obtainable. In other words, if the government wishes to make an inventory of any material to determine how much is held in the trade, it is their privilege to do so. If the government wishes to make an inventory of manufacturing capacity, as they did prior to the last war, it is the privilege of the government to require that information to be furnished by any firm. It is a reasonable provision, and a provision that is included in any defence act I have ever seen.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I take it the effect of that answer is that the section is designed to give the minister the power to secure any information he wants from any business in Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It seems to me that that is unnecessarily wide power to be given, particularly in view of the fact that when we come to subsection 2 we have there provision that this information can be given out and used under certain circumstances, and so forth; I shall have something to say about that later. But it does not appear to me that the thing should be as wide as it is. Paragraph (g) says "respecting defence supplies"; but when we come to the wording of it in connection with projects and other facilities that the people have, nothing is mentioned in connection with defence at all. It might be anything.


Howard Charles Green: Does the section mean that the minister could send his representative into any business in Canada and get whatever information the minister wanted? As I read the section, it goes that far, regardless of whether that firm has anything whatever to do with the government of Canada. It may have no business dealings with them whatever, yet the minister can send a man in and demand any information that the minister sees fit to demand; in effect, that means any information that the officials of the Canadian Commercial Corporation see fit to demand.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is
exactly it.


Howard Charles Green: Furthermore, the section is wider than that because it applies to a project, and "project" is defined as covering a building, aerodrome, airport, dockyard, fortification, road or other work required for the purposes of defence. That means that the minister can send a man into any roadbuilding firm, any shipbuilding firm or any one of the construction firms; he can get particulars of the internal workings of any firm

which deals normally with projects of that kind, again regardless of whether or not that particular firm has had anything to do with any government.
The minister says that every country has provisions such as this. Yet Canada never had a provision of that kind until the war. There was never a provision of that kind in the Canadian law until 1939; and it was written into the Canadian law then because of the war and, as we thought, for war purposes. I think this clause is the most objectionable one in the whole bill. It is purely dictatorial, with no limitation on it whatever. I do not see how the minister can justify asking for such powers.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Hon. members generally have been discussing each paragraph individually. Perhaps we would make better progress if we considered the paragraphs separately. We are now at paragraph (g).


Howard Charles Green: It was paragraph (g) that I was speaking to.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Yes. Can we therefore proceed in this way: can we carry paragraphs (a) to (g) of subsection 1 of section 3? Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Douglas Scott Harkness: On paragraph (g)-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. Before
we do that, let us start over again and see where we stand.
Section 3, subsection 1, paragraphs (a) to (e) inclusive agreed to.
On section 3, subsection 1, paragraph (f).


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am sure the minister would co-operate with me in anything that would prevent me from saying anything more on this paragraph. But the minister has not answered the question I asked, except to say that the Department of Justice in a general way is familiar with this bill. But being familiar with the bill does not necessarily mean that you have considered every question that arises. It is now twelve minutes to one o'clock. I suggest to the minister that he could at any rate satisfy me with regard to part of my question if he would put it up to the Department of Justice and let us know the result at three o'clock. I think that is a reasonable request, and I am sure the minister thinks so too.


Clarence Decatur Howe: With so many lawyers in the committee, I should think that the Department of Justice would be entirely superfluous.
55946-231J
Defence Supplies
Will any hon. member in the house give us his opinion? I think my hon. friend is a lawyer.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I refrained from giving a legal opinion, tout I was interested in the minister's legal opinion, although I am not entirely satisfied with it. I am asking him quite seriously if there is anything unreasonable in asking the Department of Justice for an opinion on the matter.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think that those who require the opinion should ask for it themselves.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Stand. The minister has only smiled at me. He has not given me an answer to that question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He told you that the Department of Justice was superfluous.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the minister allow paragraph (f) to stand until this afternoon, at any rate, and consider that, suggestion? Perhaps he will feel better after lunch.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I feel fine now. Let it stand, if you like.
Paragraph (f) stands.
On section 3, subsection 1, paragraph (g).


Douglas Scott Harkness: In view of what the minister has said, and as I read this paragraph, it seems to me that it gives him power, for example, to send a man down to my farm to ask me how many pigs I am raising, how many I am figuring on raising in the next six months, how many cattle I have, how much grain I have, and so forth. He can ask me about any of those things. They are all necessary for defence. The defence forces eat a great deal of pork, beef, and so forth. It does not seem to me to be reasonable that the minister should have the power to send people into any business whatever in this country, and require the man running that business to answer any questions that may be put to him. It particularly does not sound reasonable to send these people out amongst the farmers. I do not suppose they would ever do that; nevertheless the power is there to do it, as I read the subsection. It seems to me that this provision should be amended to limit the powers to projects, let us say, which are specifically and necessarily used in defence preparations.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Will my hon. friend please tell me what clause in this bill allows the minister to count the pigs on his farm? Paragraph (g) reads:
require any person to furnish such information respecting defence supplies dealt in by him-

Defence Supplies


Howard Charles Green: That includes pigs.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is a defence supply?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: You mention animals in one section.


Howard Charles Green: Animals are considered now as defence supplies.


James Arthur Ross: Ask the troops for their opinion.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If we need to know it, why should we not obtain the information?


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the paragraph carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On division.


Clarence Decatur Howe: All right; on division.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is the committee ready to carry the clause?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No. I think the minister is all wrong about this, in spite of his legal opinions. Surely this would go quite far enough, especially when you read the extraordinary wording of paragraph (a) of clause 2 which says:
(a) "defence supplies" means arms, ammunition, implements of war, vehicles, mechanical and other equipment, watercraft, amphibious craft, aircraft, animals, goods, wares, merchandise, articles and materials of all kinds required for any project or otherwise for the purposes of defence.
I come back to this point under paragraph (g).


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend will agree that we would not look into pigs until we call up pigs for defence, I think that we might agree. I think it means horses.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not
going to pursue the question of pigs. I really am more interested in something else. Under this provision it seems to me that the minister, and, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra said, a whole lot of other people who are acting for the minister, are entitled to go in and ask for information. Let us be realistic about this. Quite true, it is the minister's authority that is behind it; but actually there are a number of officials who are entitled to go in, I take it, to get all the information about patents and processes of any kind, things which may be very injurious. Again let me say that if this is all going to be done by the minister personally it might be-


Howard Charles Green: Bad enough.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Well, bad enough, or good enough, but at any rate this is a very different thing. I think we have to be realistic about this. Surely (g) does do

exactly what the hon. member for Calgary East said. It opens the door wide, and it lets you get any information, secret or otherwise, confidential or otherwise.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend would divide industry into two parts for defence purposes: those who are willing to co-operate with the government in giving information that the government requires to make a survey, and those who are not willing. As to those who are not willing he would say:	We will not
question those; they need have no part in defence; we cannot bother them; we will just deal with the willing ones, and the survey will represent what the willing people will say they can do in defence; with regard to the unwilling people, we will just count them out; they will not be a factor when there is a war. Well, when there was a war I do not recall that we made much distinction between willing people and unwilling people.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister says that when there was a war we made no distinction. We have said again and again, until I am sure the minister is tired of it and we are tired of saying it, but apparently it is necessary to keep on saying it, that the whole basis of our objection is that this is peacetime. What we are worried about is that these powers, these extraordinary powers are now apparently a commonplace in peacetime.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Unfortunately even in peace, for the defence of the country, some people think it is necessary to take harsh means. Now, if this represents harsh means, this country believes it is necessary to take this step.


James Arthur Ross: I want to support what the hon. member for Calgary East has said. I take great exception to the last remarks of the minister, that we are dividing this country up into those who are willing to support the defence-


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, I did not say that; I said those willing to give information, and those unwilling to give it.


James Arthur Ross: Those willing to give information and those unwilling. I can take the minister to many people who in the last war ruined their health in the performance of services for the country. Many of these people object today to this type of legislation being introduced by a government in peacetime. I tell the committee that they are very patriotic people. If there were another war, or if this country needed defence measures, these very same people who did so much that they ruined their health in producing food and so on, for the armed

services, would be willing to do it again. They do not think that we should have this type of legislation in peacetime.
I lost an opportunity to speak yesterday because I was called out of the house on something else. I cannot refer to that now, but I did vote against the bill. I would have liked to have an opportunity to speak on the bill, and speak on behalf of many people whose views I represent on this type of legislation in peacetime. It does not fit in at all with the day after day criticisms that we have made in trying to get information out of the Department of National Defence. It is in absolute opposition to anything that we have got from the Minister of National Defence. I want to say that that clause is something foreign to democracy as we have it in Canada.
Again to go back to many of our producers who are just as patriotic in the defence of this country as the minister or anybody else, they disapprove of this type of legislation. I cannot be too emphatic about that. I present the words "dividing up this country" which the minister put on the record a few moments ago.


Mr. Pearkes:: I have said very little on this bill, 'but I believe that there is a fundamental change in the necessity of preparedness in peacetime from the conditions that existed many years ago. Years ago, as I have pointed out many times in the house, Canada had ample time after the outbreak of war to build up her material and equip and supply her troops. I have said time and time again that I believe those days have passed. It is necessary for us to take measures in order to prepare our forces for the defence of this country such as we have never had to take before.


Mr. Sinclair:: Bring on the colonels.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We are very proud to have someone in our party who is independent and who does not always follow the party line. It does not worry us at all. I wish you had a few in your party.
To go back to (g); the minister has been kind enough to say he will have a look at (f). I want him to have a look at (g). I want to remind him of what he said a few moments ago, namely, that perhaps we do not need this legislation yet. I hope the people of Canada will come to know this. We talk about being harsh. What does harshness mean? It means, as the hon. member for Souris said, he assumes that there is a division, as he iddicated a few minutes ago, between the willing and the unwilling. I think that is an insult to the people who are considered unwilling. I say again that he
Defence Supplies
has not been able to give us a single instance to show that this power is needed, to show that there is anyone unwilling. I told him yesterday-and he ought to take this as a compliment-that he had very great prestige in the manufacturing community and that I believed he could do this without all these extraordinary powers. At any rate we now come to (g), and you have this inquisitorial power which, it seems to me, is foreign to everything. I wonder if all the men who voted for this so blithely yesterday read these things through, and whether they consider it is good. Are they prepared to have this inquisitorial power almost without limit?


Mr. Jeffery:: I have not heard any suggestion from any member of the opposition of any practical amendment that could be made to this section. I have heard the appeal of a lawyer on a previous subsection. I have heard the opinion of a lawyer in the house, and I do not think there is any lawyer in this house or in Canada who could make an amendment to this paragraph which would be practicable in the working of the act.
The officials cannot walk in and make these inquisitions unless it has been directed by the minister that they make them. The minister himself is responsible to the public if he makes inquisitions. If they are unreasonable he will not be a minister very long. Therefore I say there is nothing we can do about this paragraph.


James Arthur Ross: You have not been here very long; you do not know.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This paragraph makes possible the setting up of what might be called an industrial gestapo. It does not seem to me that it is necessary for the working of this act to have powers of that kind, power on the part of the minister to require all this information from any individual who is engaged in industry. It is completely against the liberties of the individual which we have always looked up to and protected in this country and which I think everyone in this country wants to have continued. This paragraph should be deleted or amended in such a way that the wide powers will not be there.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock. Mr, Ross (Souris): At one o'clock we were discussing paragraph (g) of section 3. First of all I want to say that there is absolutely no difference between the hon. member for Nanaimo and myself in our desire-


Mr. Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemoni):: He
will vote for it.

Defence Supplies


James Arthur Ross: That is rather meaningless. There is no difference right now between us in our desire to see all the branches of our defence forces properly equipped and cared for. But this is peacetime. There is undoubtedly a right and a wrong way of doing this thing. We differ only as to the procedure. Why one minister should have all these dictatorial powers in peacetime I fail to understand. I am just as eager to see proper methods of defence in this country as anyone else. The present minister, who is now asking for these dictatorial powers, during the calendar year of 1949 insisted that the government should disregard and ignore the law of this land. At that time the Minister of Justice, who was sworn to observe and respect the law of the land, apparently lacked the courage to insist upon carrying out the law of the land or in turn to offer his resignation as any of his predecessors in that high office I think would have done.


Mr. Dechene:: Who wrote that one?


James Arthur Ross: I wrote these notes
myself. If you know my writing you can check it and find out.


Joseph Miville Dechene: Read it if you like.


James Arthur Ross: I am not reading it.


Joseph Miville Dechene: The hon. gentleman is reading every word.


James Arthur Ross: I will move down to the next seat and leave my notes for you. I have been here twelve sessions, and I have never read any speech in the house other than one prepared from notes of my own. I feel keenly about this matter. I was referring to the Combines Investigation Act and the flour milling report. I know something about conditions in this country. Surely the Minister of National Defence should have some responsibility in the matters covered by this present measure. He and other cabinet ministers are dodging their responsibilities.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I must remind the hon. gentleman that we are dealing with paragraph (g)-


James Arthur Ross: Under which great and wide powers are given to the minister.


Louis-René Beaudoin: -which deals with information which the minister can ask to be furnished.


James Arthur Ross: I was referring to what the same minister has done in the past calendar year, and now we are being asked to give the same minister much wider powers. As I pointed out before one o'clock, some people with whom I am personally acquainted are just as patriotic as any others and care just as much about the defence of this

country. They disapprove of this legislation. I think there is a greater feeling about national defence in this country at this time than there was at any time in previous history. During the last great war there were differences of opinion in this country; there were those who believed, with the best of intentions, that no troops should leave our shores. They felt that our energies should be confined to production. I am not criticizing their view, but there was that division. Today it is realized that if there is another war this country may be the Belgium of that war. The result is that there is a much more united feeling about matters of national defence. Irrespective of what we think about its being a privilege to serve in the armed forces, there is no lack of concern in any corner of this house about national defence or a desire to see that all members of our armed services are properly equipped and cared for in every respect.
It is an entirely different thing to give one minister all these powers, especially those provided for in this paragraph (g). I know it has been said that this is being made a personal matter, but I contend that no minister should be given that power. It should be a matter for the cabinet to decide and surely the Minister of National Defence should have responsibility in these particular matters.
As I have pointed out before, we have spent days discussing the estimates of the Minister of National Defence, and so far we have not succeeded in getting anything that would lead us to believe that there is a need for legislation such as this in peacetime. There certainly is no argument about the desire of any of my colleagues to grant authority in the proper way. I have pointed out that there is a united feeling about national defence in this country, but there are many people who are just as patriotic as anyone in this house who disapprove of this legislation being passed in peacetime.


James Sinclair: What about the hon. member for Nanaimo?


James Arthur Ross: The hon. member for Coast-Capilano asks, "What about the hon. member for Nanaimo?" I made it very clear at the start that there is no member in this House of Commons for whom I have more respect than that hon. member. I pointed out that there was no difference between us about national defence and the providing of proper equipment and care for our troops. It was probably only a matter of the detailed methods about which there might be some difference. I respect the hon. member because he has had much more experience than I have had.

I will go further. I have been pointing out that the Minister of National Defence should have some concern about this. The other day the hon. member for Mackenzie made some remark about colonels and so on and said that he and the Minister of National Defence had served as buck privates. I would remind him that some of those colonels were originally buck privates. I do not think it can be said to be against them that they became colonels after serving as buck privates. I know that some of those colonels refused promotion for some time, men who have debated this matter in this house.


Mr. Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: What are you discussing?


James Arthur Ross: I am discussing national defence. Has my hon. friend any objection? It may even be that some of the brass hats would rather have a buck private as Minister of National Defence than a certain major general to whom reference has just been made. We have freedom of thought.
I repeat that we have objection to any one man being given the powers granted by this bill.	.
Section 3, subsection 1, paragraph (g) agreed to.
On section 3, subsection 1, paragraph (h).


Howard Charles Green: Paragraph (h) deals with the construction and repair of ships. It gives the minister power to specify, subject to the approval of the governor in council, to what shipyard this business will be sent. As I read the paragraph it covers more than ships for the Department of National Defence; it would include shipbuilding for any department of the government. That would seem to be an unnecessary addition to the Defence Supplies Act. I ask the minister whether it would not be ample for the purposes of the act to have the power limited to ships to be constructed or repaired for the Department of National Defence.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The purpose of the paragraph is to divide government ship contracts of all kinds among shipyards in an equitable manner so that we may be able to keep in operation the shipyards that we believe we would require in war. During the last war our shipyards were expanded tremendously. If contracts for ships were let on the basis of tender, as required under the Public Works Act, you would have a situation where dog eats dog, and in my humble opinion you would only have three shipyards left in operation. You would have one on the west coast, one on the St. Lawrence and one on the east coast, and the others would be bankrupt. I think that is inevitable because
Defence Supplies
the yard that is best able to get the initial business and keep its overhead low is bound to get any following business. In the interests of national defence I think it is not desirable to see our major operating shipyards reduced in number from eleven to three. For that reason, on the advice of the Canadian maritime commission-and I must say anything the department does in connection with the allocation of shipyard work is done on the advice of the maritime commission-we are taking the power in the act to allocate not only work required by the naval services of national defence but also any departmental work that a department may wish to have allocated. I remind hon. members that we allocate nothing unless we are asked to do so by the department directly involved. We can allocate on requisition from a department of government. Some departments will probably prefer to call for tenders as they must do under the Public Works Act. If other departments can be persuaded by the Canadian maritime commission that it is desirable to allocate their work, and they wish to make a requisition on the Department of Trade and Commerce to undertake the allocation, then this paragraph in the bill gives the department the power to do just that.


Howard Charles Green: Has the minister any power to allocate the construction of new shipping without approval of the governor in council?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Howard Charles Green: The section is not quite clear whether the power to act without the approval of the cabinet is limited to the repair of ships as distinct from the construction of new ships.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is limited to urgent repairs the estimated cost of which is not more than $50,000. The only emergency power the minister has concerns an urgent repair, or in any event a repair not costing more than $50,000. Otherwise allocation can only be made by the governor in council.


Howard Charles Green: What is the objection to keeping the figure at $5,000 as set out in the Public Works Act?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The objection is that a boat may run aground, and commitments may have to be made exceeding $5,000 before it can be hauled off the reef. It is thought that $50,000 will likely cover emergent salvage operations, and therefore the figure is placed at that amount.


Howard Charles Green: As I read the section, the ceiling of $50,000 also applies where the repair is not of an emergent nature; to ordinary repairs as to which time is not of such

Defence Supplies
importance. Is it the intention that all ship repair contracts under $50,000 should be allotted by the minister without the approval of cabinet, or is that power supposed to be restricted to emergency repairs?


Clarence Decatur Howe: What does the bill say? It says, is urgently required.


Howard Charles Green: It says, "is urgently needed or does not involve an estimated expenditure", and so on. It may be that the word "or" should be "and". It makes a great difference in the coverage. What was the original intention?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I imagine that the people who drafted the bill intended it to be as it is, "or".


Howard Charles Green: Then the way the bill reads it covers both cases. Any work up to $50,000, even though it is not of an urgent nature, can be allocated by the minister without the approval of the cabinet.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I agree that the questions put by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra at the present time are perfectly in order, but I want to make a necessary distinction about secrets. There will be secrets about matters concerning strategy and no secrets concerning expenditures. When we heard the leader of the opposition speaking so much about strategy I presume he was voicing the views of the Tories of the general staff of the Department of National Defence, and to that I am opposed. There shall be no discussion of strategy in the House of Commons, but a full discussion of expenditure. I hope the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra will tell that to his leader when he returns to the house from attending the meeting of the standing committee on public accounts.
Section 3, subsection 1, paragraph (h) agreed to.
On section 3, subsection 1, paragraph (i).


Howard Charles Green: This paragraph gives the minister power to employ the Canadian Commercial Corporation, or any company to which the Government Companies Operation Act applies, to exercise under his direction such of his powers under this act, other than those under paragraphs (e), (f) and (g), as he may specify. What other corporations has the'minister in mind as likely to be used for the purposes of this act? Why does he not include in the powers which cannot be assumed by the corporation the power as to shipping? It seems to me that paragraph (h) should be added to paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) as one where the minister himself should be responsible.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The minister is responsible for the operation of every clause in the act. He has the power to delegate except for the three clauses mentioned. In other words, if it is a case of demanding priority the minister authorizes that personally. No other signature is good. If it is a case of requisitioning it must be the minister's signature. If it is a case of applying for information it must be the minister's signature. As to the allocation of ships upon the advice of the Canadian maritime commission, there is no reason why that power should not be delegated. It is a routine power. The minister has the responsibility for it just as in the case of all other clauses, but it is a power that he can very well delegate.


Howard Charles Green: What about my first question concerning other government corporations?


Clarence Decatur Howe: As to other government corporations, Canadian Arsenals is the principal one. It is handling about $40 million worth of business today, which is delegated to it by the minister. The Polymer Corporation might very well be called upon to assist in stockpiling rubber. Any crown company that can do a job more efficiently than a government agency may be called on for that purpose.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has just referred to the Canadian Commercial Corporation and the maritime commission. I challenge him to denounce the Tories who are in those crown companies.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member for Temis-couata is full of challenges today. I do not know whether he is looking for a fight or trying to be funny.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not trying to be funny; I am very serious.


Howard Charles Green: I did not know there were so many Tories in Canada as he has mentioned today. I am glad to learn that we have such extensive support, and I hope we can find more. I am trying to do business with the Minister of Trade and Commerce at the moment.
Section 3, subsection 1, paragraph (i) agreed to.
On section 3, subsection 1, paragraph (j).


Douglas Scott Harkness: This paragraph provides that the minister may-
-do such further things as may be authorized by the governor in council in regard to the procurement and disposal of defence supplies and projects.
I would like a little information as to why the word "disposal" is in here. So far everything has been in connection with procuring supplies for defence purposes, but

apparently this paragraph gives the minister power, when authorized by the governor in council, to dispose of any supplies or projects. I thought the normal way that was done was through the War Assets Corporation, that these supplies were automatically turned over to them for disposal. Is it proposed to have some different procedure with respect to the disposal of surplus defence supplies and projects, or what is the reason for this provision?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Occasionally the department gets a requirement from another government for certain supplies. The need may be urgent, in which case, after it has been cleared by the Department of External Affairs, reference is made to the armed services to see whether they would prefer that we deliver existing stocks to the customer and replace those stores with new material. In some cases the answer has been in the affirmative. My hon. friend will appreciate that ammunition particularly is subject to deterioration and very often the army prefers to deliver ammunition from existing stocks and have it replaced in due course with fresh stock. In that case sales are made; the money is put in escrow and used to pay for the replacement of the store through Canadian Arsenals.


Douglas Scott Harkness: From what the minister has said I take it that the word "disposal" is put in here so that this provision will be complementary to the paragraph in the National Defence Act which was passed last week and which provided that with the authorization of the governor in council, articles which were not surplus could be disposed of; and it was explained at that time that it was to permit them to be disposed of to foreign powers. I take it the only reason for including the word "disposal" in this paragraph is that materials may be turned over to other powers, and that the ordinary means of disposal will be followed otherwise.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is a correct statement.
Section 3, subsection 1, paragraph (j) agreed to.
On section 3, subsection 1, paragraph (f).


Louis-René Beaudoin: This paragraph
was allowed to stand, and perhaps it can be disposed of now.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister allowed this paragraph to stand, though I do not know whether he did so in order to follow my suggestion and supplement his own legal knowledge.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Being a layman, and not being very clear as to just what was my hon.
Defence Supplies
friend's point, I asked the Minister of Justice to attend. If my hon. friend will state his point now I have no doubt the Minister of Justice will be glad to deal with it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I appreciate that. If the Minister of Justice will have regard to the terms of section 8 as to the imposition of a fine; then if he will have regard to the terms of section 3 (1) (f), he will see these words:
-who having received an offer that, in the opinion of the minister, is fair and reasonable, has refused delivery of such needed materials or articles, to deliver them-
In the first place, when queried as to section 8, the minister said under that section a man would get just as fair a trial as he would get in any other legal proceeding, but the view was put forward that actually the court would be restricted by the terms of section 3(1) (f) because the determination there was the opinion of the minister, and anyone indicted under section 8 would come before the court having refused to do what the minister said and would be faced with paragraph (f), which, as I see it, makes the opinion of the minister conclusive on the court.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Conclusive as to what; as to
the time for delivery?


Edmund Davie Fulton: As to the reasonableness of
the time.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Subparagraph (ii) contains
these words:
-such reference-
That is, to the exchequer court as to price. -shall not extend the period of time for delivery specified by the minister under subparagraph (i).
Is that your point? From a cursory reading of this section I would say that what it had in mind was that the minister would specify the time and price. If the price were unacceptable it would be settled under paragraph (f) (ii) by the Exchequer Court of Canada, which would determine the current market price. Then if there were an alleged breach of this section which was required to be prosecuted under section 8 I should think the court-which incidentally would be an altogether different court than the Exchequer Court of Canada, since such a prosecution would be carried on in the ordinary criminal courts-upon considering the charge that the accused to comply with the reguisition which would be able to consider whether there was a reasonable opportunity on the part of the accused to comply with the requisition which the minister had made. Take an extreme case, in which the time specified by the minister was perfectly satisfactory and reasonable, and still was not complied with. If

Defence Supplies
the accused could come along and show that he had been hit by a car at the time he was preparing to comply with this request, and so had a good and reasonable excuse for not having done so; it seems to me that that would constitute a good defence. This is not like the adulteration acts, for example, where a man selling some kind of food product has no means of knowing whether or not it is adulterated because it is only handled by him in the ordinary commercial way. Yet it is necessary to impose upon him an absolute, outright obligation that the product be pure, and if it is not, he is guilty whether or not he has any guilty mind. From a casual reading of this statute now before us, I should think it would be necessary for the crown to prove mens rea. Then, if the crown were able to establish a prima facie case, the accused could come along and show that there was an absence of mens rea by proving the facts of his defence.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have no
desire to prolong this discussion, but I want to make the point perfectly clear. I am going to read some particular lines to the minister and ask whether in his opinion it is open to the court to review the decision of the minister in this connection. If the Minister of Justice will look at lines 16, 17, and 18, he will see that they refer to a person having received an offer that is, in the opinion of the minister, fair and reasonable, and has refused delivery. My question is, will it be competent to the court to review the decision of the minister, and reach its own conclusion as to whether the order is fair and reasonable?


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I just follow that up before the minister replies? Surely that is the main point, those words in lines 17 and 18 to which reference has been made by the member for Greenwood. They must be read in the light of the subsequent provision that the exchequer court is precluded from taking into consideration or making any finding with respect to the time at which delivery was to be made. The whole implication of this paragraph is that the minister has the absolute right to set the time, or first to make an offer which includes both the price and the time of delivery. If the person to whom the offer is made fails or refuses to deliver, then the minister has the right to make an order compelling him to deliver. Under the words of the section read as a whole there is, by necessary implication, an absolute right conferred upon the minister to make a decision as to time, and the words "fair and reasonable" are part of that right. Any requirement which he makes as to time, therefore, must be considered as being fair by the court when interpreting the statute by virtue of the

provisions in the statute. I believe it is open to serious question whether the court can go behind the words of the statute and make its own inquiry, or indeed receive evidence on the question of whether the time limitation fixed was fair and reasonable.
It should be borne in mind at this point we are not asking that the exchequer court be allowed to prolong the time within which delivery may be made so as to defer delivery. That is the point the minister does not want to allow. We are referring to the proceedings in the ordinary court into which a man may be haled for the imposition of a penalty, in spite of having done his best and having failed to comply with the terms of the act.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, is not the point this, that offences generally, as I indicated a few moments ago, for the purpose of the present discussion are divided into two groups. There are those offences, and I think this covers the great majority, in which it is necessary to prove mens rea as an ingredient of the offence, or that the accused had, in relation to the alleged offence, a guilty mind, an intent to commit a breach of the law. Then there are offences, and I believe this constitutes the minority of offences, such as those relating to the adulteration of food. In the public interest it has been necessary to dispense with any proof of mens rea in such cases, for it is necessary that you find a man guilty who is selling an adulterated product, regardless of the fact he may have had no knowledge whatever that that product was adulterated.
I cannot find anything in the present statute, just in a casual perusal or upon hearing the point raised by my hon. friend the member for Greenwood, to indicate that the offence which is created here falls into the second category. If it does not fall into the second category, then it would be necessary for the crown to prove mens rea, that in relation to this matter the accused did have a guilty mind. Let us say that my colleague, in a manner which would certainly not be characteristic of him, made a demand which was absolutely unreasonable as regards time for delivery-that his demand could not possibly be complied with. I certainly cannot imagine any court, upon the accused being brought before it, under section 8, that would ever refuse to receive the evidence which the accused would adduce to show that this demand was unreasonable, and that the accused could not comply with it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the
minister permit a question?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I repeat that I am not going to drag this out, but I wish the minister would read again the words of section 8, which is to the effect that every person who contravenes or fails to observe this act is guilty of an offence. Is the minister still prepared to say that this section only contemplates an offence where there is a guilty mind?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, I think so, because if my hon. friend will look at almost every section in the Criminal Code, or the Official Secrets Act which we sought to amend today, he will see this phrase repeated time and time again: Every person who contravenes this section shall be guilty of an indictable offence, or an offence punishable upon summary conviction. The point I am making is that it is not spelled out in the section of the statute which creates this sort of offence that it imports the idea of mens rea. Yet the idea of mens rea is there, and if the accused can show, in relation to any statutory offence, which does not fall within the second category of offences, that in point of fact he did not have a guilty mind to commit a breach of the act, then that is a good defence.


Alexander Haley Jeffery: I believe there is probably a weakness in this section which has not been noticed. Apparently the offence would be a refusal to deliver, and that would be a direct act. It does not say that if a man does not deliver he is guilty of an offence, it says if he refuses to deliver then he is guilty. I believe, so far as the minister is concerned, that he has a weakness in the act which he has not recognized. In other words there has to be a refusal to deliver, not a failure to deliver within a certain time, or he cannot be guilty of an offence.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All this legal language seems to be adding to the confusion. As a layman may I set out the facts as I see them. In this particular instance I happen to be on the minister's side. Subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (e) gives the subject the right to go to the exchequer court if the subject is not satisfied with the price offered by the crown.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Correct.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The member for Kamloops, who started all this, wanted the subject to have the right to go to the exchequer court if the subject was not satisfied with the time allowed by the minister's order?


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has misunderstood the point of my remarks which did not have reference to the right of appeal to the exchequer court for an extension of time, but 55946-232$
Defence Supplies
merely the right to raise a defence in proceedings to enforce a penalty that the time given was not reasonable. My argument was that, by virtue of the expressed provision of the bill as it stands now precluding him from raising any argument with respect to the time, he would be precluded from raising that defence in any court in an action for the penalty.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Whether the interpretation I placed upon the member's remarks in the first place or the interpretation he now places before us is correct, I submit that what I am going to say still applies. Still speaking as a layman, it seems to me that the only subject that comes before the exchequer court is the question of price. The other subject does not go there at all. The only way a man gets into court, because he did not obey the time element in the minister's order, is on the basis of the crown taking the subject to court, but not to the exchequer court at all. Am I not right?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It seems to me that is the basis of it. If a man does not comply with the order, and if it is only one day, the Minister of Trade and Commerce will certainly overlook it. Look what he did for the Minister of Justice with regard to the combines act last year; he gave him ten months. It is only in the case of an obstinate refusal to carry out a reasonable order that the crown takes the man into court under section 8. It seems to me that in that instance when the man got into a criminal court or a civil court-or wherever he would be taken-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: He would start with the police court.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right. It seems to me that in that court it certainly would be a defence that the order of the minister was unreasonable and that the man had done his best to comply with it.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I want to thank my hon. friend for that explanation. In the absence of the Minister of Justice, it is becoming more and more obvious that the house must depend on laymen to interpret the law.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think we should entirely agree with that statement and thank the Minister of Trade and Commerce himself.
Section 3, subsection 1, subparagraph (f) agreed to.
Section 3, subsection 1, agreed to.

Defence Supplies
On section 3, subsection 2-Non-disclosure of information.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In view of the last remarks, I hesitate to raise another point, but I must say that I am more impressed with the argument of the Minister of Justice in this case than I was with the argument of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, although by that I do not intend to detract from his knowledge of the rules of this house, for which I have the greatest respect. The point I wish to raise here is a question with regard to paragraph (c) of subsection 2 which it seems to me again gives to the minister the right to disclose information or rather to make available information gathered under paragraph (g) of subsection 1; it seems to me to give the minister the right to disclose that information in any civil action or proceedings, without any limitation being imposed on that right. Again it may be argued that obviously this right will never be used in an unfair or prejudicial manner; but I would ask the Minister of Justice, since he is here, if I am not correct in my opinion that there is no limitation, as the result of the working of this clause, on the right of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to disclose the information which he has acquired, in any action whatsoever, or proceedings whether or not they relate directly to the operation of this act or whether they arise out of any contracts or negotiations entered into under this act. In other words the minister, with the broad words that are in this paragraph (c) of subsection 2, has the right to disclose that information in any proceedings whatsoever. Subsection (2) reads as follows:
No person shall disclose any information furnished under paragraph (g) of subsection one without the consent of the person from whom it was obtained, except
(c) with the consent of the minister, in any civil action or proceedings.
My question is this. Are not those words so wide that the minister could consent and thereby authorize the disclosure of that information in any action or proceedings, even although that action or proceedings did not relate directly to any contract or negotiation made or arising under or by virtue of the operation of this act?


Mr. Lesage:: Read paragraph (g) of subsection 1 carefully.


Edmund Davie Fulton: While the minister is considering the point, might I make this additional elaboration. I oan appreciate the fact that in certain civil actions arising out of the operation of this statute, it would be desirable for the minister to be able to authorize disclosure of the information obtained in connection with the act. It might be desirable to disclose that
[Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood) .1
information in civil proceedings, but surely only in proceedings having relation to the contract, negotiation or order made under this act and not with respect to any other civil proceedings even though not involving, or not arising by virtue of that act. That is what I am interested in. I am interested in seeing whether we cannot find some words to exclude the right to give this information in civil proceedings not connected with the operation of the act.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: First of all, I want to make absolutely certain that I understand my hon. friend's question properly. Section 3, subsection 1, reads:
The minister may-
Then going down to paragraph (g):
-require any person to furnish such information respecting defence supplies dealt in by him or projects of a type executed by him or respecting his production and other facilities relating thereto in such time and manner as the minister may specify.
That is, the minister may go to this man who is dealing in these goods, seek this information from him and presumably get it. Then the section goes on in subsection (2) at the top of page 3:
No person shall disclose any information furnished under paragraph (g) of subsection one without the consent of the person from whom it was obtained, except
(c) with the consent of the minister, in any civil action or proceedings.
I think that the question that has to be answered there, and which can only be answered I presume by the minister himself, is as to whether that provision in the act is not required to meet the needs of the case. If it is, surely it is a protection to the person who has given the information in the first place, is it not?


Edmund Davie Fulton: It may be. I think we can divide the types of cases into two: first, a civil action or proceeding involving or arising somehow out of the operations of this act as out of an order, requisition or contract made as a result of this act. I can well imagine that in that type of case it would be desirable to have the information obtained under paragraph (g) of subsection 1 disclosed in that civil proceeding. But the type of civil proceeding in which that information may be disclosed with the consent of the minister is not confined to the type of case to which I have just referred. There are no limiting words on any civil action or proceeding. My question therefore is this. Surely that information could be disclosed with the consent of the minister in any conceivable civil action or proceedings whether or not they had any reference to anything that was done under this act.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I wonder if my hon. friend and I have two different opinions as to the way in which this legislation functions. As I understand, it works as follows:	Suppose
the minister wants certain information connected with defence supplies. He goes to John Doe and says:	Mr. Doe, will you give me
information in relation to your production? We will say that it is of some kind of military equipment which may be of a highly confidential nature; that is, confidential not only as regards Canada but also as regards John Doe, because there may be involved processes that he does not want his competitors to get hold of.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Exactly.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: All we are concerned with in this connection, as I understand it-and I hope the minister and the parliamentary assistant will correct me if I am wrong-is this. Once this information has been obtained by his department, then subsection 2 is put in the bill to protect John Doe against some kind of improper disclosure, by officials of the department, perhaps to John Doe's competitor, Richard Roe. Therefore they say: No person shall disclose any information furnished -by whom? By John Doe. To whom? To the minister-under paragraph (g) of subsection 1 without the consent of John Doe- it is his information-except in the case of a civil action where they had been subpoenaed, where you have got to respect the dignity of the court and the processes of the court, and that they then can do so but only when they have first obtained the consent of the minister who is head of the department. What could be more reasonable than a provision of that sort? It seems to me the provision that you have to go right up to the minister before any employee of the department can disclose any of the information which has been communicated in confidence is an excellent one, and the very sort of provision that needs to be here to protect John Doe who has imparted a lot of confidential information for his country's benefit.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If we want to protect John Doe all you need to say is that no person shall disclose any of the information obtained under paragraph (g), subsection 1 of section
3.	That protects him. This is too restrictive, because it is possible that other departments will require this information. We will say the information is obtained by an official of the Canadian Commercial Corporation properly in the exercise of the powers of the minister under paragraph (g) of subsection 1 of section 3. The minister said that, to enable him to obtain an inventory of the defence supplies to the country, right now
Defence Supplies
that authority has been granted to the commercial corporation in making an inventory; and they are making investigations into the methods, the accounting practices and the cost of producing the stuff. That is allowed. It is provided by paragraph (a) of subsection 2 of section 3, which we are considering, that disclosure may be made in certain cases. I am sorry, it is provided by subsection 2 of section 3 that:
No person shall disclose any information furnished under paragraph (g) of subsection one . . .
That protects John Doe. That is an absolute protection. Now it is desired to provide for disclosure in what are conceived to be proper cases. The first proper case is paragraph (a) of subsection 2 of section 3 which reads:
To an official of a government department requiring such information for defence purposes.
There is no question that that is a proper case. Then we come to (b) which reads:
In any prosecution for an offence under this act.
I presume again there is no question that that is a proper case for disclosure of the information. Paragraph (c) reads:
With the consent of the minister, in any civil action or proceedings.
In other words, you are allowing this disclosure in any civil action or proceedings, although you are confining such disclosure to occasions when the consent of the minister is given.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend is a lawyer. He must realize that when actions are brought in the civil court or when proceedings are taken in the civil court under the respective statutes, for the most part provincial statutes which set up these courts, they are empowered to issue subpoenas calling upon people such as Mr. John Doe to appear, and upon oath to make disclosure of whatever information within the possession of these people may be relevant to the issue that is before the court.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister did not let me finish.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am sorry; finish your statement.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In the case that the minister envisages where the official getting the information was subpoenaed to give evidence it would be a complete answer to the requirement that he give evidence to say: "I am prohibited by the statute which says that no person shall disclose any information", so that the person getting the information would not be allowed to give it under the very terms of this clause that we are considering

Defence Supplies
which says that no person shall give the information which he has received. But then you take away the protection. You say that in any civil action or proceedings he may be allowed to give it if he has the consent of the minister. My point is that you have taken away his protection and he can be compelled to disclose the information in a civil action or proceedings with the minister's consent, even although that civil action or proceedings may have no reference or relationship whatsoever to anything which has taken place as a result of this legislation.
I do not see why we should open the door that wide.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend will forgive me for saying so, I think he is under a misapprehension about opening the door. One of the effects of this subsection is that we are closing the door. Subsection 2 of section 3 says:
No person shall' disclose any information-
Without the consent of the minister. That will refer to any official in the minister's department. The matter is of sufficient importance, as indicated by this subsection, that before any official of the department upon, we will say, being served with a subpoena calling upon him to appear, and adduce this as evidence, or testify as to it, can do so, he must take the matter to the minister of the department, who presumably will go into it very carefully; and if the minister says, "No, I will not consent", that is the end of the matter. That is protection. Surely ministers are continually exercising judgment on matters at least of this importance, I would say, day after day.
Not only is that so, but for the protection of the government in respect of these defence matters no person-in this case, in other words, John Doe-can give evidence with regard to what he told the minister without the minister's consent. That is the part of it that is the closing of the door. Now this is a matter of opinion. I admit that my opinion differs perhaps from my hon. friend's, but it does seem to me that ministers are exercising discretion every day on matters more difficult and more important than the question whether this information should be disclosed. It is not getting the minister an unreasonable privilege when his consent is required before this information is given.


Howard Charles Green: What I cannot understand is this. Paragraph (g) of subsection 1 of section 3 gives the Minister of Trade and Commerce very drastic power to force an individual to give information. It is only used where the individual has to be forced to give information. Once he has given that

information surely the government should not, neither the government nor the minister, have the right to give the information to any civil court. I can quite understand that it might be all right to give the information to any department for defence purposes under section 3, subsection 2, paragraph (a), or in any prosecution under this particular act which, of course, would be in a criminal court; but I do not understand why the minister, or any other government official, has the slightest right to give that confidential information in a civilian court without the consent of the person from whom it was obtained.
The Minister of Justice has said that that may be a protection to the man from whom it was obtained. Surely that is not the situation. If the man from whom it was obtained was involved in a lawsuit he would be subject to the rules of the court before which his action was brought. He would have to give that evidence if the rules of the court provided for such being done. But I cannot understand what right the government has to give out this confidential information obtained by force without having the consent of the person from whom it was obtained when it is being given in a civil action. I do suggest that paragraph (c) of subsection 2 of section 3 should be struck out.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Does it not depend pretty largely upon how far we individually and as a house are prepared to grant ministerial discretion? I myself would have no hesitation at all because it seems to me that the minister is exercising discretion over matters much more difficult and complicated than this one here. I think it is necessary that it should be possible to produce this evidence in a civil action in certain cases without the consent of the minister, because you may have a set of circumstances which are difficult to foresee where in 1953, we will say, it is highly in the public interest that information should be disclosed to the courts in civil proceedings which the minister had received in 1948 from a corporation-and most of this information will come from corporations-that by 1953 may be completely defunct. If the consent of that corporation is required then owing to a special combination of circumstances that information may never see the light of day in a manner that might be very definitely against the public interest.
If in the course of the working out of this arrangement between John Doe and the minister, without any great fault on either side, a dispute develops and litigation in the courts ensues in relation to that very matter, surely to goodness the minister can give consent in order to get the facts into that action which

would be a civil action in the exchequer court. Surely we are not going to say that because of some statute we have passed the very information upon which the whole cause of action as between John Doe and the crown hinges is going to be locked up in the bosom of John Doe and not be available to the judge to decide. For my part I think there are many cases where we have given a minister power that is more widespread than this.


Howard Charles Green: In a case of that kind between the government and John Doe the rules of court would provide for compelling John Doe to produce the documents and to give evidence. But this is a case where the minister steps in and forces John Doe to give information for the purposes of this act. Why should that information which is obtained for the purposes of this act be made available for some civil proceedings having nothing whatever to do with the act unless John Doe consents to that being done?


Douglas Scott Harkness: What I was going to ask the minister before all this legal business came up was what situation he foresaw which would make it necessary that this should be there at all?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have been through about ten years of the application of the munitions and supply act and the minister is frequently asked if certain information can be released for a legal proceeding and at times the minister has to say "No." It seems to me far better that the minister should say "No" than for a witness to go on the stand and say that he cannot give the evidence because the law will not allow it.
Section 3, subsection 2 agreed to.
On section 3, subsection 3-Public Works Act.


Howard Charles Green: Does this subsection 3 fit in
with section 6 (e>? This subsection 3 exempts certain types of contracts from the provision of the Public Works Act which prescribes that tenders must be called. As I read section 6 (e) it also exempts the minister from the provisions of the Public Works Act in a wider field. Can the minister state whether both of these provisions cut down the effect of the Public Works Act, or just what is the relationship between these two subsections and that act?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The former act provided a
blanket exemption that it would govern regardless of any other statute, but this act does not do that. Where there is a departure from the provisions of another act that departure is written out in detail. There is no
Defence Supplies
general departure from any other statute. The Public Works Act provides explicitly that every contract shall be let by tender, and certain exceptions are set out here.


Howard Charles Green: The same is true of section 6 (e).


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.
Section 3, subsection 3, agreed to.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Requisitions.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Paragraph (e) of this section provides:
(e) a contract may be entered into by the minister without the approval of the governor in council if-
Then three alternative requirements are set out and the paragraph continues:
-but the minister shall make a report to the governor in council in respect of any contract involving an estimated expenditure exceeding five thousand dollars and entered into without the approval of the governor in council.
Is there anywhere in the act a limitation as to the time within which that report must be made to the governor in council?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no provision in the bill, but they are customarily made monthly. Each month a report is submitted to council setting out the contracts that have been made and which do not require approval of the governor in council. Those are contracts under $5,000 or contracts made in time of emergency. If it covers an important matter of emergency the order in council is submitted at the earliest possible moment and the matter reviewed by council.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.
On section 9-Repeal.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a few remarks I should like to make and I also intend to move an amendment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: A legal amendment?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes. It is perfectly in order. There are two subsections in this section. Subsection 1 repeals the Department of Munitions and Supply Act with the proviso that certain sections of that act will continue to apply to certain contracts specified in the subsection. One can have no quarrel with the repeal of the Department of Munitions and Supply Act for it is being replaced by the powers set out in the bill now before us.
Subsection 2 repeals the Defence Purchases, Profits Control, and Financing Act, 1939, and thus wipes off the statute books the only bit of legislation which places a limitation upon the profits to be made out of defence and

Defence Supplies
war supplies. I realize that section 7 of the Defence Purchases, Profits Control, and Financing Act, 1939, which placed a limitation on the profits, was overridden by the Department of Munitions and Supply Act, but under subsection 1 of this section that act goes by the board. Without getting into too much of a legal argument, it seems to me that if section 7 of the Defence Purchases, Profits Control, and Financing Act of 1939 remained on the statute books, it would now apply. My point, if I may state it again, is that the statute that overrode the 1939 act is repealed by the provisions of subsection 1 of section 9 of this bill. That leaves the 1939 act alive, at least for the time being. I for one feel that section 7 of the Defence Purchases, Profits Control, and Financing Act, 1939, should not be wiped off the statute books.
Keference has been made during the course of this debate to some of the things that were said when that act was brought before this parliament during the first session of 1939. The late Ian Mackenzie, who was then minister of national defence, introduced the measure and made many references to the feeling in the country that profiteering in war supplies was abhorrent to the people of Canada and something to which the government wanted to put a stop. At page 1767 of Hansard for March 10, 1939, the late Ian Mackenzie said:
The government, if I may speak for them, believe in the principle of equality of sacrifice; that in wartime men should not be required to offer their lives and limbs while those who provide the weapons of destruction have even the possibility of reaping undue profits.
He also said on the same occasion:
The government is determined that in peacetime, where private industry must be utilized, there shall be the strictest possible regulation of profits both in the interest of the taxpayer and in deference to public abhorrence of profits made from products which involve destruction of human lives and misery among nations.
I would remind hon. members of the quotations the hon. member for Kootenay West made yesterday from articles written in years gone by by the present leader of the opposition. I would also remind members of the quotation that the leader of the opposition gave us yesterday from a speech made by Mr. Mackenzie King in years gone by. We are all together; we all say the same thing, that we do not want profits to be made out of the manufacture of war materials.
The particular formula or provision set out in section 7 of the Defence Purchases, Profits Control, and Financing Act, 1939, may not be the best way to achieve the aim of limiting the profits to be made out of war materials,

but until something better is produced I for one do not like to see that formula and the principle behind it wiped off the statute books of the country. As I have already said, it is the only take-the-profit-out-of-war provision on our statute books. I have heard the explanations made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce on a number of occasions as to why the government found it necessary to override the provisions of section 7 of that act in the fall of 1939. Maybe the explanations are acceptable and maybe they are not, but whether they are acceptable explanations or otherwise it seems to me that the mere statement that one particular formula was not satisfactory is not a sufficient reason for doing away altogether with the principle of taking the profit out of war. I would go further and say that I think 5 per cent is too much profit to be made out of producing war materials; I think all profit should be taken out of war, and then perhaps we might get rid of war itself; but at least we have that kind of provision on the statute books now, and I do not think we should take the retrograde step of doing away with it.
I believe the course that parliament should follow at this time is to retain that provision on the statute books. Then if the government feels that that particular formula is not the best one for doing the job let them bring in an amendment to provide another formula. In the meantime let us not wipe out the only piece of take-the-profit-out-of-war legislation that we have. I am sure that that provision is the least that the Canadian people want. I may say to the government that the Canadian people have not forgotten the fact that the 5 per cent clause was overriden in 1939 by the Department of Munitions and Supply Act. I know there was a good deal of feeling about it. I know that if the committee makes the decision now that that legislation is to go by the board for good, many Canadians will wonder just what it is all about.
The surest way to give Canadians confidence that our defence policy is clearly a defence policy, and that we have not yielded to the greed involved in profits made out of war supplies that was mentioned by the former prime minister, Mackenzie King, the leader of the opposition and others, is for the committee to say today that we are going to keep section 7 on the statute books at least until something better is provided. Toward that end, Mr. Chairman, I move:
That clause 9, subclause 2, be amended by adding thereto immediately after the word "repealed" the following words:
"except for section 7 of the said act, the provisions of which shall apply to all contracts made under this act."

So that it will be clear on Hansard what the effect of the amendment will be, may I say two things. First of all I should like to read section 9, subsection 2, as it would read with my amendment. It is as follows:
9. (2) The Defence Purchases, Profits Control, and Financing Act, 1939, chapter 42 of the statutes of 1939 (first session), is repealed, except for section 7 of the said act, the provisions of which shall apply to all contracts made under this act.
The other thing I should like to do is to indicate briefly what is contained in section 7 of the Defence Purchases, Profits Control, and Financing Act, 1939. It is a rather lengthy section with nine subsections and one of the subsections has three subparagraphs. But the gist of the section is contained in the first two subsections, which I should like to read. They are as follows:
7. (1) The maximum net profit received by any person in respect of any contract to which this section applies shall be limited to an amount equal to five per centum per annum on the average amount of capital of such person employed in the performance of the contract.
(2) There shall be levied upon and paid to His Majesty, by any person who is a party to a contract to which this section applies, a tax equal to the amount by which the net profit in respect of any such contract exceeds an amount equal to five per centum per annum of the average amount of the capital of such person employed in the performance of the contract.
As I have already indicated, there are seven more subsections, making nine in all. The others give details as to how the principle of this section is to be applied. I should like to point out that if my amendment carries it would then make the provisions of section 7 of the Defence Purchases, Profits Control, and Financing Act, 1939, apply to contracts made under the bill now before us, which is known as the Defence Supplies Act. I feel very strongly that we should not wipe out section 7. The remainder of the Defence Purchases, Profits Control, and Financing Act, 1939, can go. Those provisions have been replaced by other provisions, but until something better is produced section 7-the only take-the-profit-out-of-war legislation we have-really ought to stay on the statute books of Canada. I hope that the committee will support my amendment.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can shorten the discussion by pointing out the objections. It has been found in practice that the clause in question is entirely unworkable. For example, milk is one of the supplies bought in large quantities. How would my hon. friend determine the capital employed in producing milk? I suppose it would be the value of the cow. Under that clause the government would be limited to paying a price for its milk that would return
Defence Supplies
5 per cent per annum on the cost of the cow. You can multiply that example by any number, but the one I am giving obviously meets the situation. There are a great many. The worst is where the production is a very small fraction of the output of a certain industrial plant, and it is quite impossible to determine the amount of capital employed in the production of the article in question.
I might point out also that I believe when that act was passed the tax on corporate profits was 5 per cent. Today it is 38 per cent in all provinces except Ontario and Quebec, where it is 40 per cent. Suggest for example the profit margin be written down from 5 per cent to 3 per cent. If the total profit a man may make is 3 per cent of his capital, he would be much better off buying dominion government bonds, which yield about that, and sitting back collecting his 3 per cent without producing anything at all. That would be the course of prudence, because in that way he could not lose. My hon. friend is not making any provision to take care of losses; he is just eliminating profits. If a man is interested in profits, the kind of man my hon. friend is trying to curb, he would certainly find a sure way of getting profits and of avoiding losses. I just mention these things to show how utterly unworkable that provision is; therefore it is quite unacceptable to the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If I may just have a word before the leader of the opposition rises, as the minister probably knows, in the latter part of section 7 there is an exception respecting contracts for which there is competitive bidding or tendering, whatever the phrase may be; I did not take time to read the whole section to the committee. I would assume that some of these products which are supplied by a great many people, such as milk, would come under that exception. It seemed to me quite clear from reading the whole section that the kind of supplies it would clearly apply to would be direct war supplies, with particular reference to munitions, as was the intention of the government in 1939.
As to the other question and the minister's reply to it, I simply say two things. I have spoken to at least one chartered accountant who tells me that it is possible, on a cost accounting basis, to meet the provisions of this section. The other comment I make is that I am not now asking the committee to accept something I have devised. I am simply asking the committee to agree to retain on the statute books something that was put there by this Liberal government, that was worked out by this government and

Defence Supplies
which the minister, in presenting it, said was really the best that had been done in the field of limiting profits on war materials.


Clarence Decatur Howe: And it never worked.


Mr, Knowles:: It was never tried.


Mr. Drew:: This is the last section of the bill. It is not necessary to review the discussion that has taken place, but before this section is carried I do think it appropriate to examine what really is happening through the repeal of the two acts mentioned in this section and their replacement by this single act. One of the difficulties hon. members have encountered in discussing this whole subject was not that of understanding what had or had not been done, but rather understanding exactly why this is being done and why it is necessary at all. The minister has just given an illustration of the difficulty' we find in knowing when to take him seriously, in his illustration of what he views as one of the difficulties in restraining profits under one of the acts that are to be repealed. He says that since milk might be required for these purposes, probably the only way you could determine that would be to find the cost of the cow and then take five per cent of that capital investment. The minister may have considered that a humorous illustration, but he knew perfectly well that neither he nor any other minister is going to be dealing with people who are operating individual cows. If they should be getting milk they will get it in bulk, from people who keep accounts-as undoubtedly the Minister of Finance will see that they do

and so far as that operation is concerned there would be very little difficulty in determining the exact situation.
Nevertheless I recognize the point made by the minister, and there may be practical reasons why a fixed limit is not satisfactory to cover the over-all field. However, by the very fact that he illustrated his point by referring to milk the minister emphasized that the legislation now before us is intended to have very wide application, beyond ordinary defence supplies. That is exactly the point we have been trying to make.
The statement has been made already that the Canadian Commercial Corporation is able to perform these duties and that it has been regarded as the agency to purchase in the place of the department of munitions and supply, and to carry out the functions related to the munitions and supply act. In that connection I would like to place on record what the minister had to say in regard to the Canadian Commercial Corporation on another occasion. On March 24, 1949, when an amendment to the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act was before the house and

the minister was speaking in support of that amendment, he had this to say at page 1946 of Hansard for that year:
It was set up that way at first, but since it has become the purchasing agency for the Department of National Defence, since it has taken the place of the Department of Munitions and Supply, if this amendment passes it will be a continuing agency.
In case there were any doubt as to what kind of agency was meant, on page 5 of the report of the Canadian Commercial Corporation presented to the minister for the year ending March 31, 1948, I find these words:
During the year the corporation, acting at the request and in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, continued to fulfil the minister's obligations as exclusive purchasing agent for the Department of National Defence.
That is exactly what we have been saying; that this corporation has been the exclusive purchasing agent of the Department of National Defence and, to use the minister's own words, that it has taken the place of the department of munitions and supply. I do not think anything has been said here by the minister to suggest any reason why the Canadian Commercial Corporation should not continue as the exclusive purchasing agent for the Department of National Defence without the need of eliminating some of the safeguards which already exist. Surely it is possible to continue the Canadian Commercial Corporation, to strengthen it and facilitate its operations in every way by any amendments that may be found necessary.
On one point I do not think there is any real difference of opinion in this house. I believe all hon. members are equally desirous of having effective procedures followed so that the defence forces of this country may be supplied with the most advanced, most efficient and most effective equipment of all kinds, and I am satisfied that every hon. member will support what he believes will carry out that abjective. One thing, however, that I think should be borne in mind is that the design of weapons, the design of defence equipment, rests now and will continue to rest with the Department of National Defence. The passing of this act does not change that situation. By passing this bill we are not changing the procedure by which the most effective and efficient design may be obtained. This is a procurement agency for the purpose of obtaining defence supplies. The Canadian Commercial Corporation has been regarded as efficient for that purpose, and for that reason I believe it should be continued, with whatever amendments may be suggested as desirable.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, I should like to know whether what the leader of the opposition is saying now has to do with the amendment which is before the committee to limit profits?


George Alexander Drew: Just this, that I am speaking directly to the fact that I see no reason why this section should be passed amending the act which has already been referred to in the section.


Jean Lesage: But the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has moved an amendment to the effect that profits should be limited. I do not see how the remarks of the leader of the opposition now could be related to that amendment.


Howard Charles Green: Leave it to the Chairman.


Jean Lesage: I am leaving it to the Chairman.


George Alexander Drew: I am pointing out that section 9 deals with the Department of Munitions and Supply Act, and repeals the Defence Purchases, Profits Control, and Financing Act. What I have said is directly relevant to this matter.


Jean Lesage: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I insist on having a decision. We are on the amendment to section 9, and I believe we should discuss the amendment and dispose of it. Then, the leader of the opposition could make his remarks.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I have heard enough from both sides to enable me to arrive at a decision. There is no doubt that at this stage the discussion must be relevant to the amendment that has been moved by the member for Winnipeg North Centre. Therefore, I should like the general discussion to be delayed until after this particular amendment has been disposed of. Furthermore, the scope of section 9 is quite broad. There is also an opportunity for a general discussion of the bill when the title is called.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, in regard to the amendment in the form that it is before us, I would point out that while it leaves section 7 of the Defence Purchases, Profits Control and Financing Act operative, if it were accepted it would still be possible for the Minister of Trade and Commerce to concur in any further amendments in regard to the amounts named which might meet with what he would regard as a practical provision, or even if actually naming a figure is out of the question a simple amendment could be moved to provide a procedure by which the profits could be controlled. Personally I believe it is a mistake to repeal this act without bringing into legislation some of
Defence Supplies
the features of this act which we have before us, because in addition to section 7 there are other sections of considerable importance, particularly the section requiring the calling of tenders wherever that is practical. So for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I would strongly urge the minister to consider the retention of those safeguards.
I recognize that, whatever the views that have been expressed in the house, this act is going to pass in the way that the minister indicates it will. Therefore, whatever expression is made on this section at the present time, one can do no more than to place on the record views which conceivably may have some influence on the operation of this act. I am speaking now to this amendment which is, in itself, not complete, but in raising it for the purpose of discussion I think it has served the purpose. Once again it brings before us the fact that we are doing away with an act that was introduced by this government, and hailed by this government as a progressive piece of legislation to avoid any abuse in connection with the production of defence equipment. In addition to the provision for the reasonable limitation of profits, there were other safeguards such as the calling for tenders. Those safeguards now disappear. I think this is a retrograde step, and in addition I do not believe we have been given any sound reason for the introduction of this legislation in this form.


Mr. Gillis:: I want to get my own mind clear on this subject. The measure before the house now not only repeals the Department of Munitions and Supply Act, but if section 9 of the bill passes it repeals the Defence Purchases, Profits Control and Financing Act which contained a provision for the limitation of profits. Unless we are prepared to amend section 9 of this bill as suggested by the member for Winnipeg North Centre, then we are not only wiping out the Department of Munitions and Supply Act but we are also wiping out the Defence Purchases, Profits Control and Financing Act. That is one thing we want to understand. This one measure is replacing two that had some merit.
With regard to the argument of the minister that the limitation on profits was not carried out because, as set out in that act, the formula was not workable, it is my honest opinion that the formula was not tried out. I cannot see any reason why it was not workable. In trying to let contracts at that time the minister might have done his best, but I do not believe that the people with whom he was dealing accepted their responsibility during wartime. I believe that the events which transpired in the latter part of the war with regard to plant and equipment bear out that

Defence Supplies
statement. The minister says it would be difficult to work out a formula to get the capital invested in any given project. I do not believe he was serious when he made his comparison with the cow. I may be simple-minded, but simple-minded people are honest, and I believe that anyone with an honest approach could work out a formula. There would be little difficulty about it.
In the event of an emergency the minister might want a munitions plant put up, or he might want the Canada Car and Foundry to extend its peacetime plant to build aeroplanes. I do not think there is ay difficulty in determining the cost. All the Canada Car and Foundry has to do is to allocate a certain portion of its plant to build aeroplanes and retool it. The only capital invested in the particular project is the cost of stripping the plant of its peacetime machinery, and retooling to go into the production of aeroplanes; that is the capital investment. Then, of course, there is the cost of constructing the aeroplane. There is no difficulty if you decide the profit limitation under a war contract is going to be 5 or 10 per cent. If the person who is going to manufacture war materials is interested in the war, is interested in the principles you are fighting for and in the maintenance of your institutions-democracy, freedom and all those things-he should not worry too much about making a whole lot of money. I do not think that those who manufactured war materials tried very hard to apply that formula when you consider that the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who was minister of munitions and supply at that time, said that they did their best but that they could not let any war contracts with that profits limitation provision in them.
I am also not unmindful of the statement that was made by Right Hon. Arthur Meighen who was in the Senate during the time that this controversy was fairly hot. He said that hundreds of his business associates-and this statement may be found in Senate Hansard- were resting on their oars because there were not any profits to be made; and if there were no profits in war, there was nothing to fight for. That is the actual quotation as I remember it. The hundreds of those business associates were not trying very hard, on the basis of patriotism, to work out that formula of limiting profits on war contracts.
As one member of this committee who has listened to these discussions a good many times, I do not accept the suggestion that that formula of limiting profits is not workable.
I think it is easy to work. I do not say whether you should draw the line at 5 per cent, 10 per cent or 20 per cent; that is
[Mr. Gillis.l
immaterial. But before we close this discussion I think that we should at least retain in that defence purchases act the principle of profit limitation in the event of an emergency. If we do not accept the amendment now before the committee, we are not only wiping out the Department of Munitions and Supply Act but we are also wiping out the defence purchases act. This act is one of the statutes passed in 1939, and it contains that principle. Despite the fact that it has been there since 1939, it was overridden by the Department of Munitions and Supply Act. No attention was paid to it and millions and millions of dollars of the money of the Canadian taxpayers were spent in building during the war, plant and equipment which was written off at accelerated depreciation. It was not a matter of making profits during the war but it was a matter of getting millions of dollars' worth of plant and equipment that was written off in three years under that accelerated depreciation plan. Nobody suffered.
I think we should benefit by the experience we had just a couple of years ago, and that every one of us should seriously consider not throwing the whole responsibility on one minister. This particular matter is one for every member of the committee. It is not a government matter at all. It is a matter of principle. I am seriously suggesting that we should understand what that amendment proposes to do. It merely proposes to retain in the defence purchases act the principle of profit limitation. If and when it is necessary to fight a war, and I hope it will never happen, then at least you have the principle there; and in the event of an emergency, someone has authority, under the terms of the act, to sit down and work out some kind of formula with regard to the limitation of profits.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Knowles) negatived: Yeas, 31; nays, 60.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall clause 9 carry?


George Alexander Drew: For the reasons that I have already indicated, Mr. Chairman, I move:
That section 9 be amended by deleting subsection 8 thereof.


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Drew) negatived: Yeas, 34; nays, 62.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall clause 9 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Section agreed to on division.

The Depuly Chairman:	Shall the title
carry?


George Alexander Drew: On division.


Howard Charles Green: This morning the minister said that he would give us an answer with regard to the stockpiling plans at the present time. Is he prepared to do that yet?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am told that we never have given out the exact figures. I think I prefer not to give the figures. It is not customary. The United States does not give them. The amounts that have been expended have been included in the estimates. My hon. friend can find them by looking over the estimates of the past. I would not care to give the *quantity.
Title agreed to on division.
Bill reported, read and the third time and passed on division.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Alphonse Fournier: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the Canadian National Railway Company to issue securities not exceeding $24,582,489 in principal amount to provide the moneys necessary to meet capital expenditures made or capital indebtedness incurred during the calendar year 1950; to authorize the governor in council to guarantee the principal and interest of securities issued by the company for the purpose aforesaid; to authorize the making of temporary loans to the said company secured by such securities and not exceeding $24,582,489 in principal amount to enable the said company to meet such expenditures and indebtedness; with authority to give financial aid and assistance to other companies of the said national system and to authorize the Minister of Finance to place at the disposal of the national company or the Trans-Canada Air Lines, such amounts as may be necessary to enable them to pay operating and income charges if at any time before the first day of July, 1951, the available revenues of the national railway system or the Trans-Canada Air Lines and subsidiaries, respectively, are not sufficient to pay such charges: provided that all such amounts shall be reimbursed to the minister from the recipients' annual revenues in so far as such revenues are sufficient, any insufficiency to be provided for by subsequent deficit appropriation by parliament.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is the parliamentary assistant going to make a statement?


James Sinclair: Mr. Chairman, this is the resolution which is presented each year to introduce a bill to provide for the financing of the Canadian National Railways. Each year the Minister of Transport presents
Canadian National Railways to parliament the annual report of the Canadian National Railways and the budget for the coming year, which is then referred to the sessional committee on railways and shipping, owned, operated and controlled by the government. That was done this year on March 23. The committee had 22 meetings, and presented its final report to this house on May 11, at which time they had adopted the budget of the Canadian National Railways and the Trans-Canada Air Lines for the coming year.
The Minister of Transport then turns to the Minister of Finance to introduce a finance bill to provide for the capital expenditures which are included in this budget. This present resolution is identical in terms with the resolutions of previous years with the exception of the actual amounts involved and the deadline. It actually falls in three parts: First of all, the authorizing of the Canadian National Railways to issue securities, in this case not exceeding $24,582,489 in principal.
The second part is that the government is empowered, on the security of these securities, to make advances to the railway against its capital expenditures until such time as it is judged opportune to float a bond issue.
The third part authorizes the government to make advances to the Canadian National system in case their current revenues are not sufficient to cover current operating expenses and income charges. It is here that the only change in this resolution occurs. Always before the deadline for such advances has been March 31 of the year ahead. Last year, for example, the resolution had the deadline March 31, 1950. However, the lateness of the presentation of the report this year has got us in this position, that we are now past that deadline. Since March 31 the government has had no authority to make such advances to the railway, and as this will probably happen again it was thought best to advance this deadline to July 1, 1951. I expect that to be carried on in future years, so that the parliament will have passed this bill and the authority for such advances thus made before the July 1 deadline.
I do not think there is anything else that I can say here. I have here a great mass of detail on the bill which I suppose may best be discussed when the actual bill is before the committee.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to make a few brief comments on this. In the first place it is a little like discussing the affairs of the railway in a vacuum when we are so close, or hope we are so close, to the report of the royal commission which has been inquiring into the railways and which

Canadian National Railways is charged with the heavy responsibility of making recommendations which may go a very long way toward changing the situation which we are dealing with now. It is very desirable that that report should come down as rapidly as possible. I hope it will be comprehensive and effective when it comes, because at the present time we seem to be in the very unfortunate position that these great public institutions, our two great railways, through no fault of their own, have aroused a certain amount of irritation in the public mind by reason of events that we are already familiar with. I do not propose to take further time on that.
I should like to ask a few questions for the purpose of elucidating some of the points which arise in this resolution. The parliamentary assistant has pointed out first of all that we are asked for the authority to issue securities not exceeding $24 million odd to provide the money necessary to meet capital expenditures and indebtedness incurred, and to authorize the government to lend money against these in the interim. These are described as principal amounts to meet capital expenditures. I take it that is for the Canadian National and subsidiary companies; that is to say the whole system. The relationship to the Trans-Canada Air Lines, as I understand it, is different. It does not include public expenditure for the Trans-Canada Air Lines. Am I right?


James Sinclair: No. The Trans-Canada Air Lines is regarded as part of the national system.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes, but the Canadian National as the owner of T.C.A. is, I take it, in the position where it is called upon to make and does make advances to the T.C.A. from time to time.


James Sinclair: Quite right.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What limitation, if any, is there on that? That is no part of the $24 million? Does that come in where it speaks later of "authority to give financial aid and assistance to other companies" or will the assistant explain just where that money for T.C.A. would come from and just what limitation there would be on it?


James Sinclair: Perhaps my answer could be given better on the bill when we shall have people from T.C.A. here. T.C.A. is regarded as just one of the companies of the national system as far as these finances are concerned. There is no more limitation on them, so far as capital expenditure is concerned, than on any other of the units of the Canadian National system. All of these proposed capital expenditures, of course, were in the budget of the Canadian National Railways and the Trans-Canada Air Lines when it was submitted to

the sessional committee. The large items are given actually in the bill, in the second section of the bill. If there is any interest I could put them on the record now. They are also in the report of the sessional committee. The Canadian National Railways is the organization which comes forward under this bill for the authority to issue securities up to this amount.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think this
information could be obtained just as well when we have the bill, but I think we should be a little more clear as to the distinction which apparently does exist between the relationship of the Canadian National Railways to its constituent companies in one group, and to the T.C.A. which is set out separately.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Fournier, Hull (for Mr. Abbott) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 310, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures made and capital indebtedness incurred by the Canadian National Railways system during the calendar year 1950, and to authorize the guarantee by His Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Sarto Fournier: Mr. Speaker, if I may have leave to revert to routine proceedings, I desire to present the second report of the special committee on the Dominion Elections Act, 1938.



BANKING AND COMMERCE


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


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minisier of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago the chairman of the special committee on the Dominion Elections Act presented its report, and I should like to have the consent of the house for leave to introduce a bill based on that report. This wish on our part was made known to the leaders of the parties opposite and as far as I know they are agreeable. If the bill is given first reading now, it can be printed overnight and be in the boxes of hon. members

tomorrow and they will have an opportunity to consider it 'over the week end before it is called for second reading.
With the consent of the house, therefore, I would move for leave to introduce Bill No. 311, to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1938.


Gordon Graydon: Was the report of the special committee on the Dominion Elections Act concurred in? I understood that it was merely presented.


Walter Edward Harris: It was not concurred in. It was not intended to be concurred in, because the government is adopting the terms of the report.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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



DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
48. Departmental administration, $90,620. (Translation):
Mr. Gagnon:: Mr. Chairman, immigration is so closely linked with all forms of civil, economic, social and religious activity in this country, it has such far-reaching effects on the present and future life of this nation, that the solution of this problem affects our whole social structure.
The working classes are most concerned with immigration such as it is practised by the present government. It worries them a great deal, since it provides dangerous competition. The workingman is fully cognizant of the fact that the unscrupulous employer may thus find a pool of cheap labour into which he may dip at will, and which will allow him freely to regulate his employees' wages and, consequently, their standard of living.
Whether we like it or not, and with all due deference to my honourable friends, may I be permitted to say that immigration is and will remain a source of unemployment in Canada, as long as we are not in a position to take more active care of the newcomers, as long as the opportunities for farm settlement in Canada remain limited.
However, it is not my intention to deal with this very complicated question in all its implications and from all angles, but I simply want to make known the views of my constituents on this matter.
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) recalled in his budget speech on March 28 last:
Total labour income, in spite of the one per cent fall in employment, has continued to increase, and its monthly rate at the end of the year was about five per cent above the same months a year earlier. Average weekly wages rose about three per cent during the year, while the cost of living advanced barely one per cent.
While the decline in employment as a whole has been small, the increase in unemployment has been greater, due, of course, to the fact that the total labour force continues to grow. The outlook for 1950 seems to be that the volume of employment will increase moderately, but it is possible that it may not catch up with growth in total labour supply.
These words, besides indicating unequivocally that the problem of an ever-increasing labour supply is disturbing the politicians who, during the last war, promised that there would be no unemployment after the war, clearly indicate that industry this year will be unable to cope adequately with the demand of those seeking employment to allow them to secure the necessities of life and, especially, to face 'the high cost of living.
If unemployment was anticipated-in fact, the government did not believe in it since this evil had befallen us long before the minister made in the house the statement to which I have already referred-why then persist in bringing to this country immigrants who are apt to glut an already overstocked labour market?
The position of the Canadian economy is such that it cannot absorb such mass immigration as we have had since 1945. On the contrary, present circumstances would seem to call for a complete halt in immigration until jobs have been found for all our own people.
During 1949 the civilian labour force of Canada, including Newfoundland, averaged approximately 5,200,000, a gain through natural increase and net immigration of 110,000 over 1948. Employment averaged 5,055,000, an increase of 80,000 over 1948. Unemployment, defined as those wholly unemployed and looking for work, averaged 145,000 in 1949, an increase of 30,000 over the previous year.
Those statistics, taken from the budget papers, show that in spite of the vastness of our territory, the extraordinary wealth of our resources, the rapid expansion and constant progress achieved by our country during the past fifty years, excessive immigration is disrupting our economy. Commenting upon those facts, Le Devoir wrote as follows on April 30 last:
If unemployment is on the increase, it is not because our economic activity is decreasing, but rather because the number of jobs does not increase

Supply

Citizenship and Immigration as rapidly as the number of workers. This can be demonstrated mathematically. During the year, the number of workers increased by 110,000, while the number of jobs available increased by only 80,000. There is a difference of 30,000. Thus, there are exactly 30,000 more unemployed. The equation is perfect.
Unfortunately, the white paper does not distinguish between the contingent of new workers supplied by the normal increase in population and the net contingent afforded by immigration. Possibly, the shortage of 30,000 is about equal to the number of workers who have migrated here. In round figures, some 360,000 immigrants have come to Canada from the time the war came to a stop to the end of 1949. As the percentage of workers was high among these immigrants, they must have numbered over 200,000. And we had 145,000 jobless.
Now, in mid-June, hundreds of thousands of workers are still unemployed.
In my constituency alone, the latest reports indicate that a few thousand people are still looking for work, but to no avail.
What will happen next winter when insurance benefits are exhausted?
On the other hand, we are told that so far the government has favoured a selective immigration policy. I should like to know in what way it has been selective.
Did the government try to bring into Canada immigrants of Anglo-Saxon origin only or Jews expelled from every country in Europe? How has the government chosen between English, French, German or Spanish immigrants? Has any preference been shown for any one race, language or creed? If so, for which race, language or creed, and why?
Did the selection apply only to moral, health and political standards? I don't know. But I do know that miners, domestic servants, labourers were brought in, as well as a great many people who are neither technicians nor experts and who, consequently, are likely to be unemployed at the first sign of a recession.
If we need highly skilled craftsmen, scientists, men of learning, it is not only a good thing, but a desirable and necessary one to facilitate their coming to this country. But Canada must not be considered by other countries as the natural outlet for their surplus population. Canada should not be made a ghetto or a back-door to the United States.
An editorial on this subject, which appeared in the April 4th issue of Le Soleil, the Liberal party's official paper in Quebec, makes interesting reading. It is entitled "Against mass immigration." The writer says:

One of the natural consequences of the neighbourly relations between Canada and the United States is that a great many earnest workers are prevailed upon to leave the poorer country and move to the wealthier and more favoured one, in the hope of bettering their lot. That unfortunate situation has arisen everywhere borders are easily crossed. This loss of the very blood and sinews of this country has had its effects on every class, even among refugees and immigrants. In spite of these losses, our population is increasing, as well as employment opportunities, but in unequal ratio.
And it is surprising to learn that unemployment is also growing when employed workers are more numerous than ever. In view of these circumstances, for what practical purposes does the government still want to admit thousands of foreigners for whom there is no need generally in the professions, in industry and in business? The only reasonable explanation for this policy is that, first, the country will need more mouths to use up our agricultural production and more hands to defend our shores in case of an invasion. A reason less readily admitted is the device of using D.P.'s as return cargoes on our otherwise empty ships. Before these newcomers are able to bring returns to the nation which extends hospitality to them, they are dependent on the poor as on the rich, on private charity as on public relief, on large families already overcrowded in small accommodations as on the owners of magnificent residences. And each immigrant finding employment takes a potential job away from the student or the apprentice seeking to settle in his own native country.
We, the people of Chicoutimi county, want to keep Canada for Canadians. The pioneers of this country have indefeasible rights, of which our government is not free to deprive them for the benefit of certain promoters of immigration. Instead of spending millions to bring over from Europe fur merchants, ladies' wear manufacturers and dealers in ready-made garments, we should think of our wage earners, of the humble folk, of all those of our people who falter under the heavy burden of taxes and the high cost of living, and use a few of those millions to alleviate their distress and suffering, as well as to provide jobs for them.
(Text):


Mr. Henry:: Mr. Chairman, it would be difficult for the member for Rosedale to remain silent in this debate upon the estimates of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. The population content of the riding is such that it is important that I place before members of the committee certain views on the important question of immigration. We have in Toronto-Rosedale unity in the midst of diversity from the standpoint of the various racial groups in the community. We have the usual groups which are found in the majority

throughout Canada. I refer to those of English, Irish, Scotch and French origin. They are in the majority in the riding but we have several important racial groups in the riding constituting a strong body of new Canadians. They are proud of their traditions and the great things that make them what they are.
I should like to mention the Hebrews, Macedonians, Poles, Ukrainians and Italians in particular. They are citizens who are proud to be Canadians. Right within the riding of Rosedale they demonstrate a spirit of tolerance second to none in Canada, and they live in harmony as true Canadians beside their fellow Canadians of the majority group. Despite diverse racial origins and creeds there is great harmony and a spirit of community building amongst us. This is genuine democracy and true Canadianism.
I may say I was much impressed with the speech made the other evening by the hon. member for Vegreville. He demonstrated to the house the fine motives which actuate these new Canadians in coming to make homes in our land. These new Canadians are very grateful to the minister for the sympathetic consideration he has given to their submissions placed before him from time to time. Nevertheless, like all people who desire new immigrants for this country, they do not receive all they seek from time to time, and they have thoughts they wish put forward in the house as to how the immigration laws of Canada can be improved.
Naturally the problem of immigration brings forward extreme points of view. I was not in the house when the hon. member for Spadina made his speech, but from reading Hansard I gather he made a rather sweeping indictment of the government on the subject of its immigration policy generally. From reading that speech it seems to me the hon. member for Spadina was saying that the government had no policy or, in the alternative, that what policy it had was an echo of oft-repeated principles devoid of substance.
With this view I cannot agree. I go back to the policy of the government as stated by the former prime minister; and I say that policy, enunciated in May, 1947, in my opinion remains the soundest policy for Canada. Let us examine it as I summarize it under three heads. The first point of the policy was and is that the government does not seek to alter the fundamental ethnic character of Canada. Right-thinking Canadians agree with this, and I believe the majority of the people throughout Canada approve this principle. The second point of the policy is that immigration shall be related
3G75
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration to the absorptive capacity of Canada. Whc will disagree with this fundamental point, which I believe has the approval of our people generally? The final major point of the immigration policy of our government is that there shall be selection of immigrants with care, to the end that those we bring here to share our freedom and our political institutions shall be loyal to the spirit of freedom and to those institutions in Canada.
Having in mind this policy, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the day for mass immigration has gone, if ever there was one. Those words "mass immigration" form an ominous phrase with an ominous connotation. Visualize, if you will, hundreds of thousands of immigrants coming to our country from the four corners of the earth. They descend upon our cities, towns and villages. Let us assume they are unprepared for gainful employment and absorption into the life of Canada; they may even be unfamiliar with our skills. If they come in too great numbers we can be sure they will have no practical means of livelihood in Canada. Care must be exercised. Is it any wonder, then, that organized labour has placed on record its view that there shall not be mass immigration into Canada but that in effect there should be selective immigration. We do not want to undermine the labour unions. We do not want to bring such a great number of immigrants to this country that their labour may be used as a means of depressing wages. Immigrants are brought to this country to build Canada and bring new skills, to the end that there may be production of new wealth. Let us take this view of immigration and we will be on sound ground. Let us stimulate the production of consumer goods; we will have nothing to fear if our immigration policy is designed toward this end.
The policy I have stated has been applied to a preferred group in a very careful manner. We have given preference to those of English, Irish, Scottish, French and American origin; and I do not think anyone in this committee would quarrel with that preference. After all it is the people of the British isles to whom we owe the great ideas of government which prevail in this parliamentary democracy. The French explored the great rivers and vast spaces of this land in the beginning, and in one province we have their civil law. The United States has always been a great factor in the economic life of this country, and we welcome people from that country if they choose to come here. We do not labour this point, because it is obvious.

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
On the other hand there has been a more restricted outlook as to the people of other countries; but I do not blame the government because within the last few years immigration has fallen off. Other factors have been responsible for this, and over these factors the government has had no control. I mention that in western Europe an export ban has been in effect on capital, which has had much to do with the falling off of immigration into Canada. I say, too, that we must not blame the government for refusing to go headlong into some over-expanded program of subsidies for transportation costs, loans against frozen assets and other financial assistance to aid immigration. I take it the departmental officials have kept in mind that about twenty years ago we had what was known as the British empire settlement scheme. Mark you, I am not an expert, but from what I am told that scheme was not so successful as to invite repetition in this year of 1950.
I do not criticize the policy of the government, but I say that its application can be extended at this time, and in that connection I have a few suggestions to put forward. Let us have more immigration agreements with countries abroad. Through such agreements we can regulate gainful employment here for the immigrants who may come, and we can seek some financial assistance from the countries abroad. An example of this is the Dutch agricultural scheme, which has worked very well in bringing Dutch farmers to Canada. Is it not possible for us to implement agreements of this kind with countries such as Great Britain, Ireland, Scotland, France, Switzerland and, let us say, the Scandinavian countries? Perhaps we cannot negotiate such an agreement with the United States, but by other means we can stimulate immigration from that country if we go about it in the logical way.
In the end, therefore, those countries not mentioned in my remarks up to this point remain to be considered. What are we going to do there? Many of them are behind the iron curtain, and in those cases immigration becomes very difficult. Many of them have displaced citizens in those countries of western Europe I have mentioned. In my view we must look to the regulations. Let us consider, and let the minister through his officials consider, the abolition of what I call rigid, artificial, inflexible rules. There is the country of origin rule, which in effect blocks out whole groups of worthy immigrants. There is the degree of relationship rule; many people are not near enough in degree of relationship to those who sponsor them. Can we not do something about altering this rule? Let me sum it up in this way. Let us


judge the value of each immigration application on its merits, through some administrative tribunal within the department, and let us have an honest evaluation of the merits without artificial regulations hindering immigration.
Finally I wish to say a word about what I call selection. That is important to all of us, because we know that the matter of security is paramount to Canadians. We do not want to bring immigrants here to build up the economic side, if they be the wrong type from the standpoint of security and undermine us on the political side. We have to allow for human error, and human error will prevail to a certain extent. Let us, Mr. Chairman, make our regulations in such a way that there will be security screening, just as strictly as possible, from the standpoint of keeping communists from immigrating to Canada.
I speak with confidence as I stand here today to conclude my remarks. My confidence is all the greater because of the minister who occupies the post of citizenship and immigration. He is known to us as a lawyer, as well as a soldier of distinction. It was a personal loss to the Prime Minister when he placed him in this post so important to the government of the day. As parliamentary assistant to the Prime Minister he served with distinction, and we know that his talents will be well employed in this important field. Just as he served before the bar of international public opinion, he will serve at home and solve these problems which we are considering. May I say to him that, as he is a great Liberal, let him liberalize these immigration regulations in accordance with his personal qualifications. The result will be a good one, I think; immigration with justice and moderation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I think it is
significant that so far in the discussion of the estimates of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, practically every speech made has dealt with the subject of immigration rather than the other matters falling under the jurisdiction of the same department. It seems to me that indicates there is the greatest concern on the part of the members of the house, as well as throughout the country generally, about this important subject. That is not to say that the others are less important, but it is difficult to imagine any subject where there is more potential good for the country than in a properly applied and vigorously pursued policy of immigration.
It is also significant to note that, although there have been two or three statements from the government side of the house, practically every speech made has been, to a greater

or less degree, critical of the policy of the government, and more particularly of the application of that policy. While I should like to say that I agree with the member for Rosedale in the soundness of those parts of his remarks applying to the necessity for maintaining adequate security precautions in connection with our immigration, in connection with not disturbing the ethnic balance of our present distribution of population, I cannot agree with him that the application and pursuit of the policy of immigration by the government has been so successful as to deserve any commendation whatever. I join rather with those who, while realizing the difficulty of this problem, nevertheless feel that the steps taken so far are disappointing, and that this house should leave no doubt in the mind of the government during the discussion of these estimates that it feels we have been sadly lacking and must do better in the future.
In studying this question of immigration, it is quite significant to find that there are comparatively few books or papers or treatises on the subject of immigration as a whole, particularly as applied to Canada. I should like to bring to the attention of the members of the committee one of the few available reports or studies. It is a study instituted in the province of Saskatchewan in 1930, and the findings are contained in the report of the Saskatchewan royal commission on immigration and settlement presented to the government of Saskatchewan in 1930. I am not going to devote any time to a lengthy analysis of its recommendations, but I should like to lay before this committee some of the considerations discussed in that report, as well as some general considerations which I propose to make the basis of a motion I intend to bring before this committee.
One of the first recommendations made, and which seems to me has application at the present time, is that any scheme of immigration must be worked out in conjunction with the provinces because it is to the various provinces of this country that the immigrants will go. It is under the jurisdiction of the provincial governments, and through close contact with the people in the welfare fields, that the new settlers will be raised. I think that no time should be lost in convening a group to study that problem alone. I do not believe it is sufficient to say we are having a dominion-provincial conference this fall. I believe that conference is to be concerned with entirely different matters. It is essential that a conference should be convened to study this matter; and, to start with, a meeting of the departmental officials of the various governments who would be concerned should be" held. There should be a meeting of the
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration officials from the provincial departments of lands . and resources with their opposite numbers in the federal government, to work out at the official level a basis for a joint program or a joint submission to the joint governments for an immigration scheme.
Then other considerations follow with respect to the importance of immigration generally, and the reason why we must set about bringing into Canada a substantial number of immigrants. The various considerations laid out in the study to which I have referred are still of the most urgent and practical application, even though the report was made twenty years ago. Certain other considerations have arisen' since. One of the most compelling is the need of national defence. An area which is as large as or larger than the continental United States, an area which would undoubtedly be the prize possession of any other country, is not capable of being defended by a nation of only thirteen million or fourteen million people. While we are fortunate in being assisted in defence schemes by the United States of America, and in being able to rely upon them to assist us in the joint defence of the North American continent, I do not believe any hon. member will think we can escape our responsibility for the defence of this part of the North American continent, this Canada of ours. I doubt if any hon. member would disagree with me if I were to say that in the world of today, Canada almost certainly cannot herself defend her territory. It would be shirking our responsibility if we failed to face the fact that, without a substantial increase in our population, we will not be able to discharge our primary responsibility in that regard.
Then there is the consideration concerning the importance of one of the principles found in population studies over the years, population and economic studies, to the effect that it is necessary for the population of a country to reach a certain level numerically in order for the country to be able to maintain its high standard of living. It must be admitted that, so far as my study went and so far as the report of this commission went, there are no figures available for Canada. Nobody has yet worked out the actual optimum population level for this country. But I feel again that no hon. member will disagree with me when I say that it is certainly questionable-in fact, I think it is almost impossible-to expect that we should continue much longer to be able to sustain the standard of living which we now enjoy, and which we properly expect, with a population of only thirteen million people and with budgets at the present time running at a level of two and a half billion dollars and quite conceivably growing to three billion dollars in the immediate future, particularly as
3G78

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration defence requirements and social security and similar commitments grow, as the government undertakes further responsibilities.
With a static or virtually static population of only thirteen million people, with the tremendous problems which this country imposes on us with respect to communication, with respect to the development of resources, by its very area and the very size and difficulty of the terrain, it is almost impossible to expect that, in a world of increasing standards and of increasing requirements, we should be able to maintain the present standard of living let alone raise it, unless we increase our population and therefore considerably expand our productive capacity.
Then also there is the question of the loss of population which occurs through the economic attraction of other areas. It has been alleged in the past, and I think it has been established-although the figures vary-that we suffer a substantial loss of population from year to year by the attraction of the generally higher standards of income enjoyed in the United States. Hence, in considering the question of increase in population, we have to reckon not only with the fact that, by the normal increase involved in our excess of births over deaths, not only would our increase be slow on that account, but the increase itself is made less speedy by the fact that we lose each year a certain number to the United States.
In considering this and other factors, the Saskatchewan commission came to a conclusion which I think is sufficiently important to be read in its own original words at this point. As reported at page 18, they said:
For these reasons we conclude that it is desirable that no unnecessary checks be placed on population increase by immigration.
They go on to deal with the fact that certain checks are necessary, but they come back to their original contention that no unnecessary checks should be placed on population increase by immigration.
I should now like to turn to one other aspect of this matter, and that is our particular relationship with Great Britain and with the British commonwealth. I have said that I agree with the hon. member for Rosedale that it is important that the ethnic balance of population in Canada be not disturbed or distorted by any over-enthusiastic policy of immigration. Our traditional connection with the United Kingdom, together with the present situation of the United Kingdom, seemed to me to indicate that we should make a special effort to obtain suitable immigrants from that country. I shall have something to say in a moment about the necessity of obtaining immigrants from

other countries, a matter which I think is equally important, but I wish to deal specially with the question of British immigration.
I believe that one should approach this matter without a limited horizon. One should remember what has taken place over the last couple of hundred years in connection with the concept of the British commonwealth and the relations that those countries bear one to another. One should remember that Great Britain has not only exported standards of living and sent people to every part of the world, but has also exported the great idea embodied in what we call British justice and the rule of law. Then it seems to me that we should devote at least some thought and some part of our ideas and aspirations towards preserving that concept and preserving a continuity of that relationship. But no country and no group of countries can stand in the face of history or of development. History is that the centre of influence, the centre of population, or the centre of power shifts. I believe that fact has to be accepted and realized by all countries in the British commonwealth if we are to maintain intact, and to preserve from undue stresses and strains, that friendly relationship which we have had in the past.
I should like to see that relationship as close as or closer than it has ever been. My concept is of no change in our affection for or attitude towards one another but simply a recognition of, and acceptance of, and indeed an assistance to, the course of history in shifting the centre of the British commonwealth from the United Kingdom to the various member nations of that commonwealth.
I believe that Canada's resources, potentialities and political maturity all have such an important bearing on this matter that, viewed in their proper light, we can without exaggerating look forward confidently to the day when we shall be the centre of the commonwealth, the centre of a tremendous group of world powers. That involves a readiness on our part to accept, and admittedly a readiness on the part of the United Kingdom to permit, a considerable flow of emigration from the British isles to this country.
I think that perhaps it would be well if we could have with the British authorities that consultation which the hon. member for Rose-dale referred to, from that point of view, and say: Do not stand in the way of history; do not place impediments in the way of free movements of people as you are doing now by restricting the people from the United Kingdom in their coming over here; do not

place those impediments in the way of the free movement of people because, if you do, you are standing in the way of history.
I do not want to overdevelop this thought. What I have in mind is this. Surely it is no longer logical for us and for other countries to continue to export raw materials and food over thousands of miles to places where they may be manufactured and re-exported back here. Surely it is much more logical, and surely it is the proper course of history and development, to see that people come to where the raw materials and the food are, bringing with them their industrial knowhow, and the same traditions and ideals which we share and which, in fact, have inspired the growth of the commonwealth. The movement of population from the United Kingdom to Canada, under that concept, would be part of a logical, natural process; part of the growth and the preservation of that commonwealth which we value so much. But just as we say to the United Kingdom, you must not place impediments in the way of the free movement of people, so must we also be prepared to encourage and to assist in the movement of people from the United Kingdom and other countries to this country. I cannot be satisfied that we have made every effort to assist in British immigration. I myself have letters, I have discussed the matter with other members and with other individuals in Canada who have spoken to people with similar experiences; that is, experiences of difficulties when they applied to Canadian authorities in the United Kingdom, difficulties placed in their way, or at least a lack of all-out enthusiasm, help and assistance in ironing out the difficulties which stand in the way of those people coming into this country. I believe that Canada could do much more to assist immigrants from the United Kingdom. I believe that Canada must do much more to assist that immigration.
Before I leave this general idea that I have been dealing with may I say I think it significant that this Department of Citizenship and Immigration follows almost immediately the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. In the last day and a half of the discussion of that department we were dealing with the difficulty of marketing Canada's tremendous agricultural production. I have said already it seems illogical to ship our raw materials and raw food thousands of miles, have them manufactured, and then shipped back again. How much more logical it would be to have the people come to where the food and raw materials are. That should be one of the conscious thoughts behind the
15, 1950	3679
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration immigration policy; that the long range solution of our agricultural problems-while we may adopt floor prices, support programs and programs of encouraging or discouraging this or that aspect of agricultural production, which are necessary so long as we have such an imbalance in our economy-rests upon bringing more people to this country to consume the food that we produce.
I have found, too, that very few studies are made of the number of people that would be necessary to produce a balance in our economy in that respect. But I did hear one very eminent authority discussing this matter, Dean demerit of the department of agriculture of the university of British Columbia, who has since retired, say that his estimate was that if we would bring to Canada, or if our population were increased by, five million people we would have a practically balanced economy, from the point of view of there being sufficient people in Canada to consume the things which we produce with the exception of one crop, namely, wheat. With respect to apples, pork, beef, and almost every other agricultural commodity that you could name, with the exception of wheat, it was this expert's calculation that an increase in our population of five million would practically solve that problem of the imbalance, of our dependence upon the export market.
These, Mr. Chairman, have been pretty general considerations on a general subject on which, as a matter of fact, there is general agreement, namely, the necessity for a conscious and an active immigration policy in so far as this country is concerned.
What I want to turn to is some of the shortcomings in our policy. I regret very much that what I have to say should be said at a time when a new minister is occupying the position of Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, because no member of the house, be he a new member or one with the longest experience here, cares to make a sharp criticism of a new minister. Therefore I ask the minister if he will-and I am sure he will-regard this simply as a criticism of government policy and in no way arising simply because he is new to the office.


Mr. Fraser:: He will get it next year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: After all, he is in the government now.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The figures with which I have been furnished indicate a very disturbing and sharp decline in the flow of immigrants to this country over the past two and a half years. We all thought, after the Prime Minister made his statement on government policy on May 1, 1947, that we could expect to see, if not in the year, at least within the

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration next year and the year after a constant and steady increase in the flow of immigration until finally it reached quite sizeable proportions. These expectations have not been realized. We remember the interest-and I think I would not be going too far if I said the enthusiasm-with which the statement of May 1, 1947, was received. I well remember the headlines in the press across this country, hailing this great new immigration policy, as it was called.
My main criticism of it is that while the principles laid down are sound enough, not only have they not been applied, not only have no positive steps been taken to apply the principles, indeed nothing was said at the time to indicate how they would be applied, and nothing has happened since to indicate that there is any serious intention of applying them and of bringing in the large, increased and increasing number of immigrants which was then forecast.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Before six o'clock I was outlining some of the general considerations which should apply to any immigration program we might adopt and indicated the necessity of taking active steps to increase Canada's population by immigration. I should like to turn now to some of the shortcomings in government policy and particularly to the failure of the government to take steps to implement the immigration policy which it has laid down. It is convenient at this time to refer to a statement made by the Prime Minister on May 1, 1947, and which gave rise to such hopes that we would in fact have an immigration policy for Canada productive of results. These hopes have totally failed to materialize. The Prime Minister is reported on page 2644 of Hansard of May 1, 1947, as having said:
The policy of the government is to foster the growth of the population of Canada by the encouragement of immigration. The government will seek by legislation, regulation, and vigorous administration, to ensure the careful selection and permanent settlement of such numbers of immigrants as can advantageously be absorbed in our national economy.
The figures on immigration which we have obtained since that time indicate that the policy has failed totally of implementation. I do not recall any legislation that has been introduced which is of far-reaching moment in regard to this matter. With regard to regulation, it was pointed out by one of the members of the government party speaking

this afternoon that the main effect of the regulations seems to be to restrict rather than to encourage immigration. With regard to vigorous administration, figures which I shall quote in a moment show that the main effect has been that while the inflow of immigrants has declined by some fifty per cent, the cost of administration has increased by some twenty-five per cent.
The Prime Minister then went on to outline the short-term program and the longterm program of the government. The shortterm program was related to the situation as of May 1, 1947, when, as he pointed out, we were confronted with a serious shortage of shipping and, therefore, it would not be possible to bring large numbers of immigrants to Canada. But with respect to the government's so-called long-term program the Prime Minister laid down basic principles which are to be 'found on page 2645 of Hansard as follows:
Let me now speak of the government's long-term program. It is based on the conviction that Canada needs population. The government is strongly of the view that our immigration policy should be devised in a positive sense, with the definite objective, as I have already stated, of enlarging the population of the country. This it will seek to attain through the development and energetic application of productive immigration measures.
Then a few sentences later on:
Apart from all else, in a world of shrinking distances and international insecurity, we cannot ignore the danger that lies in a small population attempting to hold so great a heritage as ours.
Before I give the actual figures of our present immigration I should like to refer to a speech made in Ottawa on Saturday, May 27 last, by the present minister. Remember that we have a country with a larger land area than the continental United States and with a population of only 14 million people. At one time this country absorbed between 500,000 and 1 million people a year. There were certain disadvantages that accrued during that heavy inflow of population but I submit that their causes have largely disappeared with our reaching a relatively high degree of * development in the present populated areas of Canada and with our high degree of industrialization.
Speaking in this city on Saturday, May 27, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration said that in the view of the authorities at the moment Canada would be capable of absorbing a population which on a certain mathematical calculation turns out to be 140,000 a year by way of immigration. I submit that that is much too low a target for our immigration policy under the circumstances in which we find ourselves. Yet that is the only indication we have had as to what the



IS, 1950

[Stage Direction]
government thinks should be absorbed and even that target, if it be a target, is far in excess of the number that are being brought in today.
I have spoken already of the desirability of a large flow of immigration from the British isles, and I should like to refer to some of the other countries from which we should receive immigrants. At the present time the inflow of immigrants from continental Europe is seriously restricted by the regulations. I know that one cannot go too far in relaxing regulations against those who were our enemies five years ago, but I maintain that the interpretation of the regulations is far too restrictive, and so is the classification of enemy aliens.
We all know that there has been a tremendous upheaval on the continent of Europe. People whose only offence is that they happened to live in countries which were overrun by the nazis and were caught up in that turmoil and swept into Germany or into countries which had been overrun by Germany are now classified as enemy aliens, and are now excluded, except those who are in a very limited category with regard to relationship to Canadian residents. In many cases they are the relatives of people who are most admirable citizens, people who came here with very little and who have built up a livelihood for themselves and a stake in this country, people who are now prosperous and substantial citizens in the best sense of that word. Yet their relatives are prohibited by the regulations from coming in at the present time. This is a matter on which positive action by the government is required to relax those restrictions and allow these desirable settlers to enter the country.
What is the government going to do to encourage immigration from the United Kingdom? As far as one can make out, virtually nothing has been done up to the present. We are told that the currency restrictions stand in the way. What we need is a bold approach to this matter. The government should be prepared to adopt means by which we could offer to prospective immigrants from the United Kingdom an extension of currency privileges in this country based upon the security of assets guaranteed by the United Kingdom government. Without something along these lines, so long as the artificial restriction of currency barriers continues we will prevent people from coming here because they cannot get the funds out to this country from the British isles. I ask the minister to tell us what discussions have taken place on that point, what is the intention of the government in that regard,
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration and what representations or offers they have put forward to the British government in that respect.
Finally I want to come to the question of the figures of present-day immigration. [DOT] In answer to a question which I asked, information was given, as recorded at page 1902 of Hansard, that the average monthly number of immigrants entering Canada from Europe, including the United Kingdom, for the calendar year 1948 was 9,352. In 1949 it was 6,966, and in the first three months of this year it has fallen to 4,823. So that our flow of immigration from the continent of Europe, including the United Kingdom, has fallen by 50 per cent since 1948. If you look at the estimates, Mr. Chairman, you will find that during the same period the cost of the domestic administration of the Immigration Act has risen by 25 per cent. For the year 1948-49 the domestic cost was $3,403,000; for 1949-50, $4,191,000; and for 1950-51, $4,482,000, an increase of $1,079,000, or 25 per cent during the period in which our intake of immigrants was falling by 50 per cent.
That is the outcome of the government statement which was so widely hailed on May 1, 1947, that we were to embark upon a policy of fostering immigration by legislation, regulation and vigorous administration. The only result is a 50 per cent decline in the intake and a 25 per cent increase in the domestic cost. It is true, and no doubt the minister will point out, that the cost of overseas administration has declined. I suggest that if we are going to have a policy of immigration, overseas is the very place where we should be spending more money in order to assist immigrants to establish their nationality and to assist them to solve their transportation and currency difficulties. That is one place where an increase in expenditure would be justified, but I submit that an increase in expenditure as to domestic costs is entirely unjustified during a period when our intake from overseas has been declining by 50 per cent.
I am quite sure you will agree with me when I say that I have probably detained the committee long enough, but in view of the matters which I have laid before the chamber, and particularly the facts to which I have just referred, I think I am justified in moving a motion by way of censure. Unfortunately under our system the salary of the minister is statutory and cannot be reduced by a motion of the house. I am not saying that when we get to the details there will not be other matters which could be attacked and where specific reductions might be moved. We do not in any way bind our hands in respect to their reduction, but at
3682	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration the present time and simply in order to register a protest against the inadequacy of the present policy of immigration I will confine my attention to item 48, departmental administration, and I move:
That item No. 48 amounting to $90,620 be reduced by one dollar.
Jean Lesage: Before I put the motion I must say that I find the following in Beauchesne, third edition, citation 484:
Amendments moved for the reduction of a grant are proceeded with under the general rules governing amendments.
Further on in the same citation there is the following:
The reduction must be of a substantial and not trifling amount . . .
In legal language, if we were in court I would be bound to say that it is a frivolous motion. I find the same principle enunciated in May, fourteenth edition, at page 698:
The reduction of a grant or Item must be of a substantial, and not of a trifling amount.
Therefore I rule the motion out of order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr Chairman, if you say your ruling is final then you will not hear further argument, but I should like to raise a point of order in the hope that you will reconsider it. May I point out that Beauchesne's rules-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Jean Lesage: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -are subject to the ordinary rules of interpretation. The amount of $1 is not a trifling amount because, as you will appreciate, whereas a cent or a farthing would be a mere token, when we are dealing in terms of the opportunities afforded to members to register a protest by way of moving reductions in the estimates, and particularly on the first item a reduction of $1 cannot be regarded as a trifling amount. I make that suggestion for this reason. Consider the situation if we had to reduce-


Jean Lesage: Order.
I do not believe that I can entertain the argument of the hon. member. The chairman has made his ruling and has considered it very carefully. As to the practice in England, I find in May, fourteenth edition, that a chairman has declined to put the question on a reduction of five pounds, which is now about $15 in our currency. The ruling must stand because I cannot consider one dollar a substantial amount.


Mr. Winkler:: Mr. Chairman, I intend to speak only briefly on this subject. When speaking before six o'clock the hon. member for Rosedale referred to the factors which govern the immigration policy, and he urged


that the basis be broadened. The hon. member for Kamloops also referred to the need for encouragement of an increase in British immigration. With both these arguments I am in complete accord.
What I should like to refer to is a rather narrow feature of the whole matter. In so doing I should like to deal with a few of the factors mentioned by the hon. member for Rosedale. He referred, for instance, to health as being a governing factor, and said that there could be no quarrel with the government for insisting that all immigrants have good health. Of course that is a matter for the medical services to determine. He also, mentioned absorptive capacity. I might mention as an illustration the workers brought in a few years ago for the pulp and paper industry. Rural members from Ontario, Manitoba and other western points will recall that some years ago sufficient workmen could not be found for the lumber camps. Recruiting went on to get every farmer's son- who could be spared -for that work, and at the same time a drive developed to bring in displaced persons as immigrants for work in the woods. Now, within the last year or so, our absorptive capacity for these immigrants has been reached, and there has been no further need for a policy which would encourage the immigration of workers for the lumber camps and pulp and paper mills.
I propose to deal briefly now with a very narrow phase of immigration which would not conflict with either of the two factors I have singled out. I want to suggest one kind of immigration which I believe has been greatly neglected; that is, immigrants to go into domestic service in this country. I would not care where those people might be recruited from, whether it be Great Britain, France, Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Italy or any other suitable European country; I am sure all hon. members will agree that there is a great shortage of domestic servants in this country. That being so, no one could object to their entry on the ground that our absorptive capacity was not great enough to take care of them. They are needed badly. I know that figures are rather dull, but in this connection I want to quote a few. At page 3029 of Hansard answers were given to questions I had placed on the order paper as to the number of displaced persons brought to Canada in 1947, 1948, 1949 and up to April of 1950. These figures indicate that
10,000	displaced persons came to Canada in that period of time and accepted employment as domestic servants for at least a year. The answer to my next question, on the same page, shows that the number employed in domestic service has dwindled rapidly from 1931 down to the present time. According to

this answer, the number of people so employed in 1931 was 146,000. By June 1, 1948, that figure had dropped to almost half, or 74,000. About that time there was a slight increase, which I believe could be largely explained by an answer given to another question I asked having to do with the percentage of the population employed in domestic service. In 1931 that figure was 1-4 per cent. By 1947 it had fallen to 0-4 per cent, but the following year there was an increase to 0-6 per cent. In other words if we take the 7,200 displaced persons who came to Canada in 1947 and 1948 and undertook domestic service for a period of one year, I believe it would be fair to assume that the small increase of 0-2 per cent could be attributed almost entirely to that immigration. On that basis it would take about 28,000 domestics to make up the percentage deficiency today as compared with 1931.
I do not suggest that my argument is airtight, nevertheless I think in the main it is sound. So I suggest that the. department give some consideration to the decrease in the number of domestic servants in Canada, and the possibility of making up that deficiency through immigration. I heartily agree with what the hon. member for Kamloops said about British immigration, but I doubt very much whether our domestic servant situation could be very much improved in that way, because I understand that in Britain they find it just as difficult to get domestic servants as we do. I believe the same condition prevails in France, where I read recently over seventy thousand Germans are doing essential work under the supervision of the French government. We have been getting a large number of immigrants from Holland, and they are very suitable, as are the Belgians, the Danes and others.
Now I should like to mention two other sources; that is, Germany and Italy. Although, as has been pointed out, they were recently enemy countries, nevertheless they possess a great reservoir of people who would be suitable for domestic service. I know from experience that girls and women in those countries are thoroughly trained as workers, and make good domestics not only in the city but also on the farms. I should point out that female help for the farms is a very serious problem with many people in Canada. It is almost impossible to get domestic servants to work on the farms. These people, I believe, could be obtained if a determined effort were made to get them. I am sure the reservoir is there, and the benefit that would accrue to this country if they could be brought here could hardly be measured. Therefore I would urge that the government give consideration to some method by which 55946-233
15, 1950	3683
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration domestic servants from suitable European countries might be brought to Canada to relieve the great need, in fact the real distress, that is being felt in many parts of the country.


Mr. MacKenzie:: I should like to make a few observations while this subject is under consideration. I believe everyone in Canada was well pleased when the government decided to create the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I am also satisfied that the people generally, and not only government supporters, were pleased when the present minister was chosen for this portfolio. We all agree that citizenship and immigration are of vital importance to the development and progress of our Canadian people. I am sure that it is a subject that requires careful study, because it is so vital to Canada. I am sure that in due time a vigorous, strong, and aggressive immigration policy will be announced for this dominion of ours. Most Canadians agree that we should have more immigrants in this country. Most people also agree that the number should be controlled, carefully screened and selected. Everyone agrees that we could not throw the borders of Canada open to mass immigration, because we could easily take in more people than we could assimilate. It is a well-known fact that when an enemy invaded China, the Chinese people soon assimilated the invader and they were all Chinese again. I believe it is vital that we have a studied immigration policy announced, and it should be fairly selective.
We only have a population of approximately fourteen million people. In view of the past records of our Canadian immigration policy, the number of immigrants should be arrived at by the departmental officials. I would say that from 100,000 to 200,000 would be a fair number at the start. Preference should be given to certain localities and certain races. We all agree that the British isles, France, and the United States should be considered, even if we have to subsidize those people to come here. We could help them with transportation and help them to settle. It might be worth while in the long run. I think we should bring in people who have, to some extent, the same ideals that we have; the same conception of a standard of living. In the riding which I have the honour to represent, Lambton-Kent, we have many representatives of the various races. In the early settlements there were Dutch, Belgians, Danish, and Ukrainian. These people settled in the Wallaceburg-Dresden area where they have raised certain special crops. They grow sugar beets and tobacco, and have made a great contribution to our welfare. Later other Europeans came in from Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and Poland,

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration and they have developed our country in a very good manner. I must say that, in my opinion, some of these people are among the very best citizens we have. They are loyal and patriotic.
Only last Sunday some of the people from the section south of my own home came to see me. They wanted to put on a big picnic in order to do something for the relief of the flood victims in Manitoba. The proceeds from this monster picnic will go to the flood victims. This is only an example of what happens all the time, so I say without any hesitation that these people who have come here have become exceptionally good citizens. I must say, and I think everyone will agree, that there is no master race in this world. There are good and bad in all races. I must confess that the United Nations organization with which I was for over two years found some of our own people, as well as people from other races, that were certainly not a credit to the organization. We cannot say that the ones who have been established here have not become good citizens.
I want to say a word or two in connection with the displaced persons, because we had a lot to do with trying to get people back to their homeland and placed in some situation where they could rehabilitate themselves. The UNRRA organization carried on a program of helping displaced persons until late in 1947, when that duty was taken over by the IRO. Among the various classes of displaced persons, the one that appealed to me particularly was the Russian. We knew them very well because, in many cases, we had them keeping our books and looking after our warehouses and supplies. They were people who had fled Russia in 1917 at the time of the revolution. They came to China, but did not want to take out citizenship papers in the Orient. They could not go back to their homeland. Late in 1947 an announcement was made that if these people went back to Russia they would be forgiven and full citizenship would be restored under the present regime. They would not take a chance on that. I remember one of the chaps particularly, who kept the records of our department, and he did want to go to Canada or some place like that. I believe these people are entitled to a great deal of consideration.
There is one more matter I should like to take up briefly. One of the problems that repeatedly faced me in China was that the Chinese people would say, "We like Canada pretty well, but Canada has always discriminated against our race." I said I did not think that could be correct, but they went on to tell me how they had been dis-
[Mr. MacKenzie.l

criminated against. I looked up some of the data on immigration into this country, and this is what I found out from the immigration department: From 1880 to 1890 many Chinese were brought into Canada as labourers for railway construction and other development work. From 1890 to 1900 some control of immigration was maintained by charging the Chinese $50 per head. This did not retard immigration, and in 1910 the head tax was raised to $500 each. That was continued until 1923 when the head tax was repealed, and an act was brought in called the Chinese Immigration Act. It became law, so it was impossible from 1923 on for any Chinese to come to this country, unless they came with shipping companies in the regular course of trade and commerce or came here as students attending university. This was the only immigration legislation that was ever enacted in Canada which applied to a particular race.
I well remember in 1947 when the announcement was headlined in the Chinese papers, both those printed in English and those printed in Chinese, that Canada had at last relaxed her immigration regulations and was allowing Chinese to enter. Upon making inquiries of the Canadian consul, I found it was not so great a step as had been reported, because all that had been done was to repeal the Chinese Immigration Act and put the Chinese on the same status as other Asiatics. Now the Chinese who have become Canadian citizens can bring in their wives and unmarried children up to the age of eighteen. From 1923 to 1947, or approximately twenty-five years, practically none of them came to this country. Very few Chinese had taken out citizenship papers. No purpose was served by taking them out, because a Chinese person could not go back and forward; so for the moment this relaxation did not do them very much good. Something else that was brought to my attention indirectly is that during all those years, from 1923 to 1947, the Japanese were allowed entry into Canada on an agreed or quota basis. In many cases they were admitted on the basis of up to 400 or 500 a year. This of course looked like discrimination. In view of the former discrimination against these people, I would suggest to the minister, as a good will gesture, that he at least allow the Chinese to bring their wives and unmarried children into Canada regardless of their age.


Gordon Graydon: Will the Reds let them out now?


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: This would not be a large number. It would be only a comparatively small number that would be affected.

May I say that I had to go to a foreign land before I fully realized what Canadian citizenship meant and what Canada should mean to the people here. I was asked many times what state 1 came from and when I said that I came from Canada, without hesitation and without any variation at all, these people all said that they would like to come to Canada, that they knew of no place in the world they would rather go. I think I said before and I say again that I do not believe there is any country in the world that stands in as high regard among the nations of the world as does Canada today. If we threw the regulations open we would have such a mass immigration here, if currency could be provided-and currency difficulties will clear away-that we could not possibly assimilate the immigrants. In my opinion most countries of the world appreciate Canada and what Canada has to offer more than do Canadians themselves. I would suggest to the minister that the policy we adopt for immigration into Canada must be a selective one. It must be carefully screened if we are going to maintain the high standards that we expect will be in effect in Canada in the years to come.


Mr. Herridge:: Because of the interest of a good number of my constituents in the question of immigration and citizenship, Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few remarks under this item, and I hope the committee will be tolerant of me. I see some of the Liberals opposite regarding me with a rather strained look on their faces, but I want them to be tolerant.


An hon. Member:: We like to hear you.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I must say that I heartily approve of the formation and the structure of this new Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I think it is one of the most logical moves the government has made with respect to organizing a department. Immigration, citizenship and Indian affairs are all branches that deal with human resources and I think this reorganization will mean more effective immigration, better administration of citizenship and, I hope, more for the Indians of Canada.
Before proceeding I must extend sincere congratulations to the minister on his appointment to this important office. I am quite sure that any new immigrant landing on the shores of Canada, if met by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, would say: This must be a fine country; there are some good-looking chaps ahead of us.
The minister has youth, but with that youth he has a considerable amount of civil, military and legal experience; and many of us 55946-233^
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration in this chamber are looking forward to a vigorous immigration policy and a more vigorous training in citizenship throughout the country. I shall have a few remarks to make on citizenship at some other time because there happen to be in my constituency quite a number of people who have not become Canadian citizens in the full sense of the word; but I will speak on that question on other estimates.
Before proceeding, I must express my personal appreciation of the work that the officials of the minister's department have been doing. It is work that is not spectacular and it is not seen; but I am quite sure that during the last five years the officials of the immigration department have had a heavy task on their hands in trying to sift and sort the multitudes that were being brought to Canada and to satisfy the needs of Canadians generally. It is my personal opinion that the officials of this department during the last five years have performed an excellent service under most trying conditions.
I want to criticize to some extent the lack of policy with respect to immigration on the part of the government; and as a previous speaker said, in doing that I am not criticizing the minister because he has only recently taken over this new department. As far as I can understand from the speeches that have been given on this item, it appears that the majority of the members of this committee, whether they are Liberals or members of the opposition, realize that there is not a strong, concrete immigration policy being put forward by this government. I think the hon. member for Spadina and another Liberal speaker mentioned that feature, as well as other speakers on this side. We hope that situation will soon be corrected by the new minister.
I personally do not believe that it is one of those subjects about which you can lay down hard and fast rules. You cannot distribute human beings as you distribute freight, lumber or materials. Dealing with human beings requires a more flexible policy than dealing with natural resources. I do not underestimate the difficulties; they are great; but I think we could have a more concrete, specific and definite policy than we have at the present time. So far I can see, to date our piecemeal policy has been to bring individuals into Canada as individuals and to relax the regulations from time to time without any co-ordination between federal and provincial governments and other agencies, or without any relationship to the over-all economic development of Canada. I think that is the greatest weakness of the immigration policy or lack of policy on the
3686	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration part of this government to date. I want to illustrate that point by one or two cases that have been brought to my attention in my own constituency. First of all, I might say it is illustrated by the fact that up to the present time this work has been done by two departments. It has been done by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and by the Department of Labour. I firmly believe that immigration should be confined within the fold of one department. In addition to that, there is no co-operation between the federal government, as I see it, and the provincial governments and the local agencies.
To illustrate that fact, in my constituency a family of d.p.'s was sent from Ontario somewhere. They had been kept in Ontario for some time. They were sent tourist class to my constituency to a farmer-the whole family-at the public expense. They were sent to the city of Nelson, and transported another sixty miles at public expense to the farm. The farm is an excellent farm. The farmer is an excellent farmer. But this family, when they got there, felt lonely. The house provided by the farmer, and it was an excellent house, was a quarter of a mile away from neighbours. After staying for a week or so, this family became discontented and did not want to stay there any longer. There were numerous phone calls by the official in our district or by the Vancouver office to Ottawa. There were numerous telegrams at public expense. Finally it was decided that nothing else could be done but to transport these people back to Nelson at public expense, transport them in a taxi to some point overnight at public expense, buy passages back to Ontario, buy tourist sleeper accommodation back to Ontario for the whole family, and bring them back to Ontario so that the government could start out again to locate this family which was not satisfied. In my opinion that situation would not occur if there were satisfactory coordination between the federal and provincial governments, with like co-ordination between the province and local agencies. There is not a local agency to appeal to to deal with these questions or to offer assistance and to find out if employment could have been found at some closer point rather than to incur what to me appeared to be quite a large amount of expense in finding employment for one immigrant to this country. In addition to that, I had brought to my attention one day the fact that on a provincial public works project in the southern interior of British Columbia a large number of displaced persons were employed. I am not blaming these men; they were seeking work, but it shows a lack of understanding, a lack of direction of labour to proper channels. These displaced
[Mr. Herridge.l

persons were employed on that public works program by the provincial government of British Columbia while local veterans who fought for this country, who went overseas, who were born in the district, who lived in that- district all their lives, could not obtain a job. I am not blaming the displaced persons, but I do say that if there had been co-ordination between the federal and provincial government and local agencies these single, displaced persons who were quite capable of going to a mine or a lumber camp without inconvenience, or to some greater 'distance than these married veterans, would have been employed at work that was necessary and required, and the veterans also would have been employed.
As far as I can see with respect to our immigration policy, Mr. Chairman, there is not even a minimum objective as to numbers. I think we all realize that in this vast land we have a duty to ourselves to share this land with the people of other countries. We have a moral obligation to those who require opportunities for settlement, opportunities for employment, opportunities to make a new life. I think most Canadians recognize that we benefit from those who come to live in Canada and who become citizens of Canada. We benefit by their labour on our natural resources, and in our industry, by their taking advantage of our transportation services, our highway services and all other services and costs provided by provincial and federal governments.
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, unless we have a planned immigration policy integrated through our national economic development we are not going to serve the best interests of Canada, or the best interests of the immigrants concerned.
In passing I want to draw the attention of the committee to a few things that have been done by the Commonwealth of Australia. It was my habit, Mr. Chairman, when I proceeded to do something that I had never done before-I think it would be the habit of most ordinary intelligent people, and I am considered normally intelligent by most hon. members; I think at times some hon. members to my left would doubt that, but I do not mind that-it was my habit, I say, to try to find out what others have done, what their experience has been, and so forth. I do want to draw to the attention of the minister certain things that the Australian commonwealth has done, which I think would be well for him and his officials to study: they with a population of 8 million and we with a population of 13 million. I am just going to give some figures before proceeding with that. These

are immigration figures for the year 1949: Net immigration to Canada, 95,217; net immigration to Australia, 168,527. There were
200,000	British immigrants in 1949 to commonwealth countries. Australia absorbed 87,504; Canada, 55,095; South Africa, 39,093; New Zealand, 16,188.
, I want to call the minister's attention to this little pamphlet which was issued by the Australian government. I should like him to read it. It is headed:	"Twenty million
Australians in our Time! Statement of immigration policy by the minister for immigration, the Hon. Arthur A. Calwell, M.H.R., to the House of Representatives, September 8, 1949". This statement lays down the principles upon which immigration is to be carried on in Australia, the need for immigration and how the immigrants are to be brought in and how they are to be distributed and so on. It is a complete policy of information for the people of Australia. I think that this government would be well advised to consider a pamphlet of this sort, the way it is drafted, and so on.
I just want to quote briefly from an immigration policy statement made by the minister for immigration on September 8, 1949, to the Australian parliament. This is what he has to say. I like the definitive nature of the statement. It is not woolly; it is not abstract. It says:
Most Australians now living should survive to see their country inhabited by twenty million people. May Providence ordain it so. This will indeed be a tremendous accomplishment; it will be population increase on a scale never before attained, and hardly ever dreamed of in our land. It will match, and probably exceed, the great influxes of people that have attended gold rushes and the opening of rich territories in this and other parts of the world in the past. It will be all the more remarkable because it will take place in modern times. The days when immigrants would submit to herding aboard crowded and uncomfortable ships like human cattle are long past. The times are over when new settlers of any desirable kind would take their wives and families far from the comforts and amenities of life and allow their children to grow up without education or opportunities. Nobody could regret the passing of such conditions less than I do, but, of course, the modern necessity to bring immigrants in comfort to new lives of civilized usefulness makes our tasks immeasurably more complex and difficult than they would have been in earlier days.
The social and economic consequences to Australia of this great population drive will be vast. However desirable the immigrants may be, and however eager to welcome them the people of their new country may be, problems of absorption and assimilation can become very serious if there is not wise and careful planning in advance to solve or minimize them. I and my department, in close collaboration with other commonwealth departments, the governments of the states, and private industry, are now devoting an increasing amount of attention to such matters.
For instance, Australia must make a more vigorous approach to the development of regions outside the metropolitan areas.
15, 1950	3687
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
I might say in that connection, Mr. Chairman, they have had exactly the same experience in Australia as we have had in Canada. We want our immigrants largely to settle our untilled spaces. We do not want to till the cities. Personally, I think the cities are the curse of modern civilization. We want our immigrants to go into the country places. We want them to go into the smaller places; but even in Australia where they have made every effort to distribute population in the rural districts, they have found them drifting back to the cities in greater numbers than they would wish. It seems today as if the modern city were the attraction for the modern human being. I think we find that same situation in Canada. I continue with the quotation:
Recent censuses have shown that our major increases in population for some time past have been absorbed in the cities. Growth in population has fitted in with the existing patterns of employment and industrial location, and without proper planning an increase of the magnitude now expected would probably swell the already swollen capital cities at the expense of broad national development. We must make the most determined efforts to ensure a better general distribution of population throughout the commonwealth, and this will mean a powerful drive in the direction of decentralization and regional development.
I want to deal briefly with the plans they have laid to stimulate this regional development by bringing in all the agencies possible to work with the federal government. The immigration planning council of the community plans the absorption of migrants into the life of the community. The Commonwealth of Australia includes in its immigration committees representatives of the federal government, representatives of the state governments, representatives of labour, representatives of industry and representatives of other bodies, such as veterans and so on. They have now a system of planning immigration and co-ordinating immigration that enmeshes a wide section of the interested population in the whole scheme, working together in co-operation with governments. I suggest that there is something in that for the government of Canada to consider.
In connection with the necessity for planning I might say that this was a news letter published in Australia March 1, 1950. It coincides exactly with the ideas of the group to which I belong. I ask the minister, if he should reply to any of my remarks this evening, not to refer to me as the acting leader of the C.C.F.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: My move forward is strictly a movement in space, not a movement in rank. I want to read this statement dated March 1, 1950.
3688	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


An hon. Member:: Horizontal, not vertical.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Horizontal, not vertical.
This reads:
A huge national development scheme is now being prepared involving an expenditure by the federal government and private investors of about $560 million (American) $616 million (Canadian) a year. It includes $112 million (American) $123 million (Canadian) to provide homes and basic communities in rural areas, and other large sums of money for the development of the Callide coal deposits and the Burdekin river hydro-electric and immigration scheme in Queensland. Development Minister Richard G. Casey said the proposals would include the importation of earth-moving equipment from British, American and other companies, and would mean the employment of large numbers of migrants. Overseas firms would be particularly welcome to participate in the program if they were able to provide men and equipment as well as prefabricated homes for their staffs to live in. Mr. Casey warned that the dollar problem might interfere with the program to a certain extent because the United States was the only country which could produce some of the equipment needed. However, steps were being taken to try to obtain machinery from America without spending dollars.
My point in quoting that is to indicate that in Australia they realize that if they are going to have a successful immigration policy, that if they are going to absorb immigrants as they arrive in the country in a systematic manner, they must be brought in in relation to a planned economic development.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: What date was that?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: March 1, 1950.
I should also like to bring to the attention of the minister some of the publications put out by the Australian government. Here is a monthly entitled The New Australian which informs the Australian people about what is being done by the new immigrants to Australia. It keeps them informed from month to month as to what is happening so far as the development of the immigration policy is concerned. I recommend that publication, and others that they publish, to the minister for his consideration.
Another interesting item in regard to the immigration policy in Australia is that all new immigrants are known officially as new Australians. There is no question of their being d.p.'s or immigrants of this type or immigrants of that type; the Australian government has appealed officially to the Australian people to consider all immigrants as new Australians. They refer to them in that way in all their literature and pamphlets and regulations.


Reception hostels are set up in co-operation with the state governments where single men may go to live for a period of two or three weeks or a month or so in order to become adjusted to the community or during the period when they are looking for satisfactory work. Assisted passages are provided for veterans emigrating from Great Britain. I should like to see this government provide assisted passages for British veterans who desire to migrate to Canada. We could well emulate the example of Australia in that respect and other types of assisted passages could be provided.
I suggest to the minister that at least early in the next session he present to the house an over-all concrete statement on immigration. I believe that if we are going to have an effective immigration policy it must provide for the fullest co-operation between the federal and provincial governments, between labour and agriculture, between the Canadian Legion and other veteran groups, between industry and other representative groups in the country, so that there may be co-operation in this matter on the broadest possible base. It is only in that way that I believe we can develop an immigration policy that will make it possible to absorb, not masses of immigrants but a constant flow of immigrants into the Canadian scene and into the Canadian economy.
I do believe that we should have one department handling immigration. The postwar period is practically over and the Department of Labour should hand over the functions it is now performing to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I think in that way we would have a more efficient immigration because I would expect more efficient immigration from the youthful, alert and active minister who is now heading this department. If the government presents a policy to this house then there will have to be a program of educating the Canadian people so that they will have the opportunity, which I am sure they will seize without question, to co-operate with the governments at all levels in order to build a greater and greater Canada.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, for the sake of those who are tired and weary I shall state that I will be quite brief. I should like to take a moment or two to indicate my support of what has been said by other hon. members, notably the hon. member for Kamloops, about the great need for immigration and about our disappointment, which we do not fasten upon the shoulders of the minister, that the policy seems to be wanting. There are three main reasons that can be given for want of immigration in this country.

One may be on a rather high level which perhaps we do not urge very often, that we have a fine land here and we should not be so selfish as to keep it for ourselves. Some will regard that reason as being rather vague and I shall follow it by giving two reasons which are more definite and more self-regarding.
The second reason is that we need more people to help us pay for running this country. If he were here I am sure the Minister of Finance would agree with that because he has told us that our present expenses are at a practically irreducible minimum. Indeed he might have gone further and told us that they are going to rise considerably, as in all probability they will when we have dealt fully with the defence estimates. None of us is very happy about the taxes that must be paid at the moment and I am sure we would all welcome having a larger number of people in this country to help to carry the load.
The third reason is one which has been given quite often and it usually presses in on us more strongly as the years go by. This is that there is a military danger to all people who are occupying a land which may be coveted by others. That seemed remote years ago but now that the world has become so small we know that it is a thing that may happen.
I should like to take stock, as it were, of what you might call the composition of our population at the present moment. I suppose it is true to say that up to the beginning of this century we had the Anglo-Saxon and French streams moving side by side in Canada. It was not until the beginning of the century that we had any other very considerable element in our population. It is pleasant to reflect that as the years have gone by, particularly these last years, we have been making far greater progress in understanding each other. Perhaps that is due to the fact that in Europe the difficulties which used to separate France and England have been removed and they have been co-operating with each other with the fullest understanding for many years.
It is important to go back to the time just over fifty years ago when the Fashoda incident occurred in Africa. It might be interesting to recall an incident that occurred in the French chamber. A debate was going on to decide whether they should take steps against Great Britain in connection with this Fashoda incident. Tempers were running rather high when one witty member said, "After all, what is Britain? She is just a colony of France that did not succeed very well." It should be remembered that when we go far enough back we find that the Anglo-Saxon and Norman strains came from the same source. I do
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration believe we can take it that as the years go by we are learning to understand each other very much better. We are learning to speak each other's language to a greater extent although we Anglo-Saxons have lagged behind in that regard. Nevertheless we are making progress and shall be able to do better.
There were one or two speeches on immigration the other evening to which I should like to refer. There was the speech of the hon. member for Portneuf who gave us some wise advice on the matter of immigration. We had the speech of the hon. member for Vegreville which I read with particular interest because he spoke about the new Canadians. I would remind the hon. member for Kootenay West that perhaps the Australians got the name "new Australians" from us because we use the phrase "new Canadians". I read the speech of the hon. member for Vegreville with particular interest because it had many wise things to say about the way in which new Canadians should be integrated. I should like to point out how fast and how successfully that is going on. When I look at the field of sport, whether in the universities or outside, I am constantly struck with the number of names of obviously new Canadians. We know that the same was true in the army, and we know that they are very rapidly taking their part in our lives.


Mrs. Fairclough:: We are all new Canadians.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The hon.
member for Hamilton West says that we are all new Canadians, which is true enough. The other day I met a Canadian of French origin in the Department of External Affairs who told me that his family had landed in Canada in 1608. That is a good deal earlier than most of us, and he was able to tell me that the first marriage that took place on this continent was between a member of his family and a member of the Hebert family. Most of us, however, do not go back as far as that.
I should like to say a word about the duty of those of us who are at any rate less new Canadians to those who come here as new Canadians. I hope the minister will say something to us about the attitude of the department. We have a certain number of immigrants coming every year, referred to the other night as d.p.'s, who have been through terrible experiences in their own countries, and who when they arrive here perhaps need a certain amount of gentling, a certain amount of consideration and patience before they can fully take their place. Leaving that aside, I hope when the minister comes to answer the many questions which have been asked him he will say something to us about
3690	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration what he is able to do in his department to smooth their way into our country. We all recognize that education after all is the only answer in the long run. We all know that education is a matter for the provinces, but nevertheless I hope the minister will have something to say to us about the measures which are taken by his department to assist these people over the difficult early days.
Reverting to the speech of the hon. member for Vegreville there is one other thing I should like to say. He referred to the melting pot theory whereby we would bring in new people and try to obliterate all their characteristic features, and as I understood him he was against that. If that is so I agree with him that we should try to preserve their distinctive arts, crafts and knowledge. It seems to me that one of the great dangers of our modern urban civilization is the wiping out of everything that is distinctive and reducing us to the dead level-I do not like to say of mediocrity because I hope it is higher than that-where distinctive features are apt to disappear.
I wish to carry out the promise I gave to be brief, Mr. Chairman, and I hope you will think I have carried it out. I hope the minister will speak to us at some length and give us a picture of what his department is doing now and what it hopes to do. I imagine it is not possible to ask him, so recently installed in office, to give us the immigration policy in full detail, but he is a man with a mind of his own and I hope he will be able to give us some indication as to where we are going. I noticed a compliment was paid him earlier in the evening. I do not dissociate myself from it, but I would put it a little differently. If I may, I should like to say that I would feel the new minister was a man of such physical proportions that it would be much better to have him as a friend than as an enemy. I hope that the physical characteristics which are so apparent may be equally apparent in the decisions which he will have to make.


Gordon Graydon: I should like to add one question to the number which the minister is no doubt prepared to answer at an appropriate time. On the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation news round-up last night I heard a reporter from London say that there was some indication in the British House of Commons either yesterday or the day before of a relaxation of some of the rather stringent financial conditions surrounding emigration from that country to Canada. At the appropriate time I should like the minister to indicate what information the government has on that point. While apparently nothing was said
Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood).]

in the British House of Commons to indicate the extent to which relaxation was about to take place, the emphasis placed on the matter by the reporter would appear to indicate that there was something in the offing. I believe Canadians generally would like to know whether or not something is going to be done.


Mr. McLure:: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to follow the other speakers who have taken part so well in this debate on immigration and immigration policies. First of all I should like to congratulate the minister on the honour that has been conferred on him by his appointment to his new position. After all the instructions he has received tonight about different immigration policies we will look to him to formulate something that will be most satisfactory to the country. At this time I wish to draw attention to a few items having to do with administration.
The minister is asking us to vote $20,555,166 for his department so that he may distribute it in different ways to the various branches. Out of that amount $3,639,140, or 18 per cent of the total, is for temporary assistance. It is true there is a little better break-down of that amount than we used to have formerly. The number of temporary employees is now given. The total number of employees in the department is about 3,100 of whom 2,200 are temporary, 839 permanent and 100 casuals. I think we should have a further break-down although I am not asking the minister to give it at this time. As to the $3,639,140 paid to temporaries, we should be told the number who are receiving $5,000, $4,000, $3,000 and so on; or are they all on the same basis and making an average of $2,000 each? I mention this because from time to time the matter comes up, and we would all like to know what the money is being voted for. We have to vote the money for the minister, and I think in the future he should give us the fullest details as to how it is going to be spent. There are other matters I wish to take up, but perhaps I had better leave them for the minister to explain when we come to the particular items. In addition to the other activities for which he is responsible I see he is in charge of fur conservation, which no doubt has particular application to western Canada. From reports I have received I understand that this activity is responsible for a large part of the revenues of this department; so when the minister gets down to that item I think we should have some statement as to the net revenue from fur conservation. The other matters I shall leave until we come to the individual items.


Douglas Scott Harkness: When these estimates were up on April 21, and again the other day, a number of questions were asked to which

answers have not yet been given by the minister. I think we should have those answers before we go on to the next item.


Walter Edward Harris: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have said twice if not three times that I would be prepared to answer all the questions on the appropriate items, as we come to them. The only question I have been asked on the general departmental item is that which was asked a moment ago by the hon. member for Queens, and I shall be glad to give the answer in due course. If we pass on, however, I will undertake to answer all the questions of which I have a note on the appropriate citizenship, immigration or Indian affairs item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Citizenship-
49.	Citizenship registration branch, $193,035.
Mr. Fair:: I should like the minister to answer the question which was asked the other evening as to the position of some of our Canadian citizens who lost their citizenship rights by marrying people from other countries.


Walter Edward Harris: The hon. member for St. Paul's and the hon. member for Battle River are inquiring about the difficulty in which some of our Canadian girls find themselves with respect to their citizenship after having married, particularly during the war years. The answer is that amendments to the Canadian Citizenship Act were introduced in the other place today, I believe. At any rate they will be discussed there on Monday next, and after they have been passed will come here. I believe that problem will be solved if the house adopts those amendments.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister said that when we came to the individual items he would answer the questions that had been asked. I remember that the hon. member for Lake Centre made a speech on the matter of citizenship during the course of which he asked some questions, and I should think this would be the time to answer those questions, as well as one or two others that came up.


Walter Edward Harris: The hon. member for Lake Centre made specific reference to two points. In the first place he asked whether it would be desirable to issue a certificate to a person who filed a declaration of intention to become a Canadian citizen. I have looked into that suggestion and find that a receipt is issued to the applicant three months after he files his declaration of intention in the county or district court. That receipt is quite clear on its face that it is a 55916-234
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration receipt for a declaration of intention to become a Canadian citizen, and we feel that document should be sufficient for the purposes mentioned by the hon. member.
Then the hon. member suggested that in Canada we might adopt the idea of the freedom train, which they had in the United States. As he said, the freedom train cost something like $1,300,000, and that might be beyond the capacity of a department which gets only some $20 million odd to cover many services. However, the thought behind the freedom train is something I think we might very properly use in this country to increase the interest of our people in Canadian citizenship. We had a more or less minor experience of that kind with our own plan for the national capital which has gone around the country and in which our people have shown a great deal of interest. We are going to examine the possibility of arranging a collection of historic documents, much the same as they had in the United States, and other matters which should be drawn to the attention of the Canadian people in such a way as to create, not only in the newcomer to our country but in our own citizens as well, an interest in our history and traditions.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar made some mention of films, which perhaps we can deal with when he is in the chamber. In the citizenship branch we do issue a good many films and film strips, of which apparently he was not aware. There is an increasing demand for these, which we are supplying to anyone who asks for them. It is true that the hon. member made particular mention of a longer film dealing with our history, the cost of which according to our records would run to $10,000 or $12,000. We are concentrating rather on short strips for use in schools and other organizations, which in fact could be used almost anywhere. If it should happen that our estimates are increased certainly we will consider a film of considerable length at the cost I have mentioned, to present certain aspects in connection with citizenship.
I do not think there were any other questions, but if the hon. member for Calgary East has any of his own I shall be glad to answer them.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I suggested that a good deal more might be done in the matter of teaching citizenship in our schools; I thought that was one of the best ways of accomplishing something definite in this connection. I wonder if the department is taking any steps to obtain material which could be used in the schools to teach citizenship, and to get it into the hands of the teachers.

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Walter Edward Harris: I did intend to refer to what the hon. member said in that connection. The citizenship branch is now publishing a number of booklets on the history of Canada and its institutions, more particularly designed for use in classes for newcomers. However, the booklets have been of such value and have created such interest in educational circles that the demand for them is increasing all the time. As the hon. member knows, schools and the like come under the provincial government, and we feel we should not enter the field unless by invitation of a particular province. I am happy to say that our relations with all the provincial governments and their educational branches are the very best, and at their request we do supply these booklets and will continue to do so, I hope in increasing numbers. As for the actual exercises in schoolrooms, we feel that is a matter for the provincial departments to control in their own way. I believe the hon. member is aware that this year we did begin certain exercises with respect to citizenship in relation to May 23. Again, however, those were wholly in the nature of an offer of assistance to the provincial departments of education in connection with the programs they might follow that day. This committee can take it for granted, Mr. Chairman, that we are only too happy to give any assistance through the citizenship branch for these purposes.


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Has the
minister received a communication from the Canadian Club in Winnipeg concerning citizenship, and the granting of citizenship certificates?


Walter Edward Harris: I have received representations from several Canadian Clubs, not only in Winnipeg but in other centres, with respect to the observance of the granting of citizenship certificates, the kind of training which might be given to persons seeking citizenship, and the like. I appreciate very much these representations because we are anxious to assist the voluntary organizations, and particularly those in Winnipeg who, I might add, are very active in this respect. We will do what we can to accommodate our organization to the best facilities which can be given to the newcomer.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Can the
minister give the committee an indication of his reply, or has it been embodied in the answer he has given?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I wrote to several of the persons who com-


municated on this subject, and I agreed with them that we should try to work out an acceptable method of dealing with the newcomers in the examination and granting of certificates. But I did point out that, beginning with the schools as I said before, we leave those to the provincial governments. In the courts, of course, the judges are in control of whatever procedure they wish to adopt. I would not care to say now what I said in my reply, because I have not got it here. I know what the hon. member has in mind, and we do hope to find a system whereby all the persons interested in the new citizens will be able to work together to carry out these programs in the best way.


Mr. Adamson:: I should like to say a word in appreciation of the Ontario Association for Adult Education, and what they have done in connection with displaced persons. The work has been almost entirely voluntary, and I know that in the district from which I come a school was taken over for two nights a week. A great deal of useful information was given, not only on the responsibilities of Canadian citizenship but also necessary information dealing with home economics and the problems of running a house. Having had in my employ a couple of displaced persons, may I say that the work being done in this connection was of tremendous assistance to these people. I strongly commend the work that is being done by this and other organizations.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Citizenship-
50.	Citizenship branch, $233,585.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, first I should like to say that I was glad to hear of the work that is being done so far as distributing information is concerned. I notice that the largest division under this item is for educational and informational material, $108,000 this year. I presume it is under that particular division of this item that those educational pamphlets and so forth, to which the minister referred a little while ago, were published. Can the minister tell us more about the material that is put out? I believe there are members who would be interested in getting copies of that material to send out to the various people in their constituencies. Of what does this educational and informational material consist?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, it consists of a great number of publications, some of them in large numbers and some in smaller numbers.


Douglas Scott Harkness: So far as I am concerned, it would be satisfactory if the minister had permission to put a list of those pamphlets on Hansard, without taking the time to read it.
15, 1950	3693
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration The Deputy Chairman: Is it agreed that the minister have permission to put the list on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter Edward Harris: The list is as
follows:
Estimated cost of educational and informational material for the Canadian citizenship branch. Department of Citizenship and Immigration for the fiscal year 1950-51
Item No. Quantity Branch publications
1.	20.000
2.	20,000
3.	20,000
4.	40,000
5.	10,000
6.	40,000
7.	5,000
8.	5,000
9.	5,000
10.	5,000
11.	5,000
12.	1,000
13.	150,000
14.	26,000
15.	5,000
16.	5,000
17.	5,000
18.	5,000
19.	5,000
20.	10 issues
21.	
22.	
23.	
Outside publications	
24.	20,000
25.	20,000
26.	1,000
27.	10,000
28.	10,000
29.	
30.	
31.	
32.	
Visual aids	
33.	20
Publication
Our Land	
Our History	
Our Government	
Our Resources	
How to Become a Canadian Citizen ..
Our Heritage	
Notre Pays	
Notre Histoire	
Notre Gouvernement	
Our Resources (French)	
Our Heritage (French)	
Comment on Devient Citoyen Canadien
English maps	
French maps	
Facts About Canada, Dutch	
Facts About Canada, German	
Facts About Canada, Lithuanian	
Facts About Canada, Polish	
Facts About Canada, Ukrainian	
News bulletins	
Art work for Items 4, 6, 10, 11	
Electros for Items 1, 2, 3, 5	
Stereos for use in Item 20	
Learning the English Language	
Learning the English Language-Workbooks	
Learning the English Language-Teacher's Guides-
Pocket Book of Basic English	
Pocket Book of Basic English-Workbooks	
French Self Taught	
French Self Taught-Workbooks	
Canada From Sea to Sea	
Canada Handbook	
Film strips

Cost

N.B.-Amount shown in this year's estimates is $108,000, to cover the above program. This does not include office stationery or supplies.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 
Douglas Scott Harkness: One other small point: I see there are only twenty-eight people in this department now, and there were only twenty-two last year, of whom ten were
3694	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration permanent. They include a messenger and several clerks. The travelling expenses, however, amount to $7,000. I know that a messenger and, I presume, most of these clerks, do not travel. I was wondering who required the $7,000 in travelling expenses.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, the persons requiring the travelling expenses are the people whom we call liaison officers. We have appointed them for the purpose of keeping in touch with the newcomers in the period we have been discussing, namely, after they arrive and before citizenship is granted. There are a number of these officials, and this item is intended to cover their travelling expenses.


Douglas Scott Harkness: They appear -amongst the temporary assistants, I suppose?


Walter Edward Harris: Some are temporary, some permanent. They are civil service appointments. May I add one word about the tabulation which has been put on Hansard. You will find that the total amount of money is $114,000, and I hope you will not question why it is that instead of $108,000 as in the previous item. It does not add up.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Immigration branch-
51.	Administration of the Immigration Act, $750,425.
Mr. Roberge:: I should like to ask the minister if the contract labour laws have been changed or cancelled. I received representations from someone in my constituency about some people who came in from the United States to do some work. Where labour was available, they refused to hire these people as they had their help, and it caused a lot of dissatisfaction.


Walter Edward Harris: Is the hon. member referring to people coming into Canada?


Louis-Édouard Roberge: Yes.


Walter Edward Harris: Perhaps if the hon. member would give me the instance I could answer the question much better on another occasion. I am not familiar with it.


Louis-Édouard Roberge: My point is that some United States citizens were brought in to work on the farm. There were two boys, and the people would not hire the boys. They had a little discussion over it, so I thought I would bring the matter up to see if any change had been made in the contract labour laws. Have they been abolished completely?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes; as I recall, they were suspended three or four years ago.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I should like to ask the minister a question about


Count de Bernonville. I believe the security department recommended he be deported; the officials of this department recommended that he be deported, and two committees recommended that he be deported. There is now an appeal to the minister against the deportation order. Can the minister tell us the status of this case now?


Walter Edward Harris: The situation is
that the appeal is before the minister and has not been decided yet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister now start
answering some of the many questions that he has before him? If I might suggest one, it would be the subject which I raised on April 21, and about which several other members have spoken, including the hon. member for Lambton-Kent today, namely, the question as to P. C. 2115.


Walter Edward Harris: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre spoke about P. C. 2115 in the debate about a. month ago. The remarks he made were not those with which I might entirely agree, particularly when he refers to the misunderstanding which occurred over the repeal of the Chinese Immigration Act; because I do not agree with him that the statement made at that time was in any way misleading, although he and others perhaps did misunderstand it.
The present P. C. 2115 is an order in council passed, as I recall it, in September 1930 and it applies to all Asiatic people. In that connection, "Asiatic" refers to a geographical area lying roughly east of the Mediterranean, and within that area it provides that the only persons who may be admitted to Canada are the wives and unmarried children under eighteen of Canadian citizens. I realize that the hon. member thinks that this P. C. should be broadened to permit the admission to Canada of wives and children of persons from that area who are not Canadian citizens. I also realize that he and others have made representations that the age limit of eighteen for children might be increased. The present policy of the government, however, is to observe the order in council as it is, with one exception with which I think the committee is familiar; that is, an exception is made for a child to be brought forward up to nineteen if he or she is the sole remaining one of the family abroad.
The argument is made that this P. C. is discriminatory against those Canadians of Chinese origin. I must repeat that it is not a discrimination against them. They are covered by the same P. C. as other Asiatic peoples; and it is not correct to say that that is a peculiar discrimination against these people.

Perhaps I might give some figures to the committee. It must be remembered that, in the years before 1947, the Chinese Immigration Act did apply; and without going into the history of Chinese immigration into this country, as did the hon. member for Lambton-Kent tonight, we can start with 1947 and say generally that only 20 or 30 people of Chinese origin had been entering this country per year up to that time. The figure last year was just one or two over eight hundred. Up to the end of April this year something like four hundred have come in. At the same rate the figure for the whole of this year might reach twelve hundred. I think the committee will agree with me that until we see the limits of the movement to Canada of people of Chinese origin, we might well leave the P. C. as it is and consider if necessary a revision of it when the full facts of the movement are apparent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I must say, Mr. Chairman,
that the figures the minister has given certainly put the government in a better light with respect to this matter than was formerly the case. The numbers used to be what one could count on the fingers of his hands. These figures of a few hundred seem to be a little bit more humane. I use that phrase particularly in relation to what should be our interest in family formations. Nevertheless, I hope the basic order will yet be changed.
Although I do not wish to pursue the argument with the minister at this time, in view of his statement that there was no reason for misunderstanding the position taken by the government back in 1947, I feel that I should put on record again at this point the statement at that time which was attributed to Mr. King, in a press release of January 27, 1947:
Mr. King said that, at an early stage of the session, the government intends to introduce a bill to repeal the Chinese Immigration Act which is regarded by the Chinese government as an exclusion act and in the nature of discrimination on grounds of race against a friendly and allied people. The effect of the repeal will be to remove all discrimination against the Chinese on account of race and to bring Chinese persons under the general provisions of the Immigration Act and no longer under legislation applying exclusively to persons of Chinese origin.
I see the minister nodding his head. In other words, he thinks that we both have a case for the position we are taking. I submit that the ordinary person, reading those words, would take from them the meaning that our Chinese Canadians took when that press release came to their attention in January, 1947, namely that the effect of the action to be taken by the government at the 1947 session of parliament would be to remove all discrimination against the Chinese on account of race. But we found that the latter words
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration in that statement, which were to the effect that they would no longer be under legislation applying exclusively to persons of Chinese origin, had the effect of putting them under an order in council which, it is true, does not apply exclusively to persons of Chinese origin, but it does apply to persons of Asiatic origin. This is where our Chinese Canadians and other Canadians who are interested in this matter feel that they were deceived. It cannot be said now that all discrimination against the Chinese on account of race has been abolished, as many Canadians feel it should be.


Mr. Thaicher:: I should like to ask the minister a question with regard to Chinese students. Can Chinese students still come to Canada? I have in mind particularly doctors who want to interne in this country. I believe that formerly they could come to Canada, and I should like to know what the present status of that class of people is.


Walter Edward Harris: So far as the
Canadian government is concerned, the situation is the same as it has formerly been. Chinese students may come to Canada, to go to university. But there is this difficulty. At the moment one is not certain whether they can get the appropriate documents from the Chinese government so that they might return at the end of their period of education here.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: What would be the position of a citizen of Hong Kong? Would he be able to come over here without this present difficulty that the minister mentions?


Walter Edward Harris: We took cognizance of the fact that there are a great many people in Hong Kong, commencing roughly last fall, and we did cut a certain amount of the regulations in the way of travel documents; but there are still some needed. If they obtain those, they can come forward; and in fact, they are coming forward from Hong Kong.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Can a doctor who has graduated from a Chinese university and wants to interne in Canada come to Canada at the present time as a citizen of Hong Kong?


Walter Edward Harris: Subject of course to the documents, yes.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Can the
minister tell us how the process of screening of potential immigrants is conducted in Europe?


Walter Edward Harris: I think the committee will understand the answer I am going to make. This is the kind of information that I do not think should be made public.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: A most unsatisfactory answer.

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Walter Edward Harris: I realize that.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I am willing to admit that for security reasons certain things ought not to be told. In the past I have complained about a certain type of screening. I refer of course to those who have come into this country with false passports. I have tried to find out how these people's backgrounds were checked into because the passports were false. The only answer I am given is that it should not be made public. I think the answer is utterly absurd.


Mr. Decore:: I was wondering whether the minister was in a position to make a statement with reference to the possible admission as immigrants of a certain Ukrainian group now in the United Kingdom and who formerly went under the name of "division Halychyna." This group as a military unit was originally formed during the war on Soviet territory. It was motivated by a desire to form a nucleus of a military group around which other military units would centre for the creation of an independent Ukraine. They wanted to break away from the soviet tyranny. In the turmoil this military division found itself under German jurisdiction. That they detested the nazis as much as they hated the communists is indicated by the fact that immediately upon contact with the allies they surrendered to the United States army. They then became prisoners of war and were taken to England. After staying in England for a while they were released to work as free citizens. I understand that a lot of them are anxious to reach the shores of Canada and to settle here. I am sure they would make desirable citizens if they came into this country.


Walter Edward Harris: The Ukrainian persons mentioned by the hon. member for Vegreville had the history he has given. When they were taken prisoners of war by our troops in Italy it was recognized by the allied commander that there were special circumstances in connection with that division because they were not treated entirely as other prisoners of war were. They have been in England since the spring or fall of 1945. We have investigated not individuals but the group as a whole, and we are quite prepared to accept them provided they come within the ordinary rules with respect to immigrants; that is, they might be agricultural workers, settlers, and the like. May I express the hope, since it may be the only opportunity I have to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Vegreville, that their sons might turn out just as he has.


Mr. Hansell:: I believe we are on item 51; at least we are talking about that item. Tuesday night I asked the minister whether he would tell the committee what the government's present policy is in respect of immigration from Italy, and whether it is expected that the policy may be changed in the near future. Can the minister make a statement now?


Walter Edward Harris: Immigration from Italy is on the same basis as it was prior to the war, since we have a peace treaty with Italy and have restored the normal relationships. Italians may come provided they are close relatives within the description found in P.C. 2743, and also agricultural workers and settlers.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Can the minister make a statement with regard to the position of Germans? I understand the governing factor is that we have not yet got a peace treaty with Germany. I must say that that seems a bit hard on a number of Germans, and people who are now classified as German nationals although racially they are not Germans. It seems a bit hard on them because it is hardly their fault. A number of them would make good citizens. I hope the minister will understand that I am not suggesting a complete relaxation of all the investigations and safeguards which now exist against the admission of people of nazi tendencies and symptoms. What I am suggesting is merely that the fact that we have not yet been able to complete a peace treaty with Germany because of Russia should no longer be allowed to prevent these Germans and other Europeans, who would make desirable immigrants in accordance with the present security standards, from coming into this country. Can the minister say anything with regard to that?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Before the minister replies, perhaps I might ask a supplementary question. I hold a newspaper clipping in my hand dated June 5. It was taken from the Toronto Star and it says that Germany asks Canada to take 500,000 Sudetens. This dispatch is headed "Bonn, Germany", and says that mass settlement of 500,000 Germans in Canada is being sought by the west German government.
I should like to know if they have made a formal application to the Canadian government to take that number. If so, has the request been considered in any way? What has been done about it?


Walter Edward Harris: 
Agar Rodney Adamson: What is the difference
between Germans and the Volksdeutsche?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Has the minister at his fingertips the number of Germans who have come into Canada since the regulations changed?


Walter Edward Harris: No, because that was in March. I can give the April figure, but that is all I can give.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: What was the April figure?


Walter Edward Harris: In the meantime I will answer the hon. member for York West. The Volksdeutsche are persons of German ancestry who, by my description at any rate, were living outside the limits of Germany prior to the war, persons in Poland, the Baltic states, Czechoslovakia, and the like.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I just wanted that on the record.


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: I have a special case to refer to in my constituency of Cumberland. German settlers came to that county after the first great war, Mr. and Mrs. Ernest Woock. They have proved themselves to be the highest type of citizen. They settled on a farm and enlarged their acreage. They have recently enlarged it by another eighty acres, and have made a success of farming operations. They recently became Canadian citizens. He was fconscripted in the first great war and served as a German. There are no children. They have a nephew who served in the last great war in France, and he is still in France. They have made application that he be allowed to come to Canada to assist them on the farm. They wish to make him their heir. This is a special case that should have the sympathetic consideration of the department.
I should like to know if the policy of the department has been changed in order to permit such an applicant to come to this country. Has the minister the authority to give such special permission or would it be done by order in council? The uncle and aunt who live in Cumberland have been
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration ready to advance the necessary funds for his passage and other expenses, but they were not accepted by the steamship company and he has not yet received permission to come. These settlers in Cumberland have proved to be excellent citizens and they have certificates as being the best citizens in the community. They have evidence of their high standing as citizens from the manager of the bank and I think it would be most desirable that in this special case permission be granted so that this boy can come to Canada.


Walter Edward Harris: Without going into the details of this particular case, a nephew would not be admissible. It is only close relatives who are admissible and that does not extend to nephews unless they happen to be orphans. If my hon. friend will speak to me later about the case I shall look into it and give him a firm answer.
To answer the question asked by the hon. member for Moose Jaw, there were 641 persons of German origin who came in in April. Those would not all be from Germany as it is the racial origin, not necessarily the place whence they came, that is indicated.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There have been a number of speeches on immigration since these estimates were first introduced in April and I had hoped that the minister would make something in the nature of a general statement and answer the considerable number of questions, either direct or implied, contained in the speeches. I think in almost every case the tenor of the speech was disappointment that the number of people coming into this country as immigrants has been steadily falling during recent months or during last year.as compared with the year before.
Nearly every speaker wanted to know what means were going to be taken to reverse that trend and to increase immigration into the country in pursuance of the policy announced back in 1947. We have not had anything so far along that line. It has been impossible to ascertain what there is in prospect to increase the number of immigrants from the British isles, which number has been decreasing materially during recent months owing to exchange difficulties particularly. We have not been told that there are any prospects of overcoming those exchange difficulties. Is the minister prepared to make a general statement in reply to the general criticism from all parts of the house, and will he indicate whether any specific steps are in prospect to reverse this trend?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps I might avoid making an extended statement, but a number of specific


this country and the hon. member for Kootenay West gave us the details of the Australian plan to assist immigration. Recently, at any rate, this country has not provided subsidized transportation as is done in Australia. I have read the booklets and other publications which are published in Australia in the interests of obtaining immigration, which were referred to by my hon. friend.
The Australian government is spending quite a considerable amount of money in advertising, but I repeat that the crux of the matter is the exchange difficulty. People will come here if they can bring their money, and until that problem is solved there is no point in spending large sums of money on publishing booklets and distributing them to people who could not react to them in any event.
When the leader of the opposition spoke in this debate a month ago he went into considerable details about the difficulties in London in connection with applications, processing and so on. With a good deal of what he said I am in complete agreement. It would be desirable to have all these various activities under one roof so that the intending immigrant could come to town and perhaps in one day get through most of the necessary work under the one roof. We hope to improve our facilities in the very near future in London and other parts of the United Kingdom. I do not believe there are any other specific questions, but if I have overlooked any I shall be glad to discuss them.


Mr. Browne (Si. John's Wesi):: Can the minister supplement the reply he gave to the hon. member for Macleod as to the number of Italians who came in under this regulation during January, February, March or April of this year?


Walter Edward Harris: Up to the end of
April there were 2,294.


Mr. Murphy:: There is one point on which I should like to have the minister express his view. It has to do with the service at the border points. I raise this matter because of an item in the press some two years ago about several hundred United States cars being turned back at a border point in British Columbia. This action of course affected a great many people and also affected our tourist dollars. What I have in mind is that I understand that at certain border points at some times the United States combine the customs and immigration officers, and one man takes the responsibility for discharging the duties of both in order to expedite the entry of the person or car as the case may be.
I feel rather keenly about this matter because it is quite important that when our United States friends come to Canada they

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
should not be unnecessarily delayed for any unusual length of time with the result that a lot of them turn back and do not . come into Canada' because of the delay at the border. We depend on the immigration and customs officials a great deal to boost our tourist industry because they are the first Canadians whom the Americans contact when they enter our country. We expect a great deal of them, and I have never been satisfied that those at the border points are being compensated sufficiently for the responsibilities that they have to assume and what is demanded of them. I should like to have the minister comment as to whether or not in the rush seasons we could introduce something along the same line as they have on the other side in order to expedite the entry of United States people into Canada.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, the mixing of customs and immigration officers that the hon. member has mentioned is on an experimental basis in the United States at the moment, and we are keeping in touch with the situation to see if it is satisfactory. We do of course put on extra help during the summer months, and particularly when a large number of tourists are expected. Nevertheless I agree with the hon. member that we should give the best reception to these people that we possibly can. I think I mentioned in my earlier statement that we checked into Canada something like 39 million people last year. Of course a great many of them were commuters and the like, but if there are any opportunities for improving the facilities for receiving these people, particularly in my hon. friend's riding, I shall be glad to consider them. At any rate I can assure him that during the summer months I am going to visit some of these points myself to see if we can improve the facilities.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: In the details for immigration on page 103 there is an amount of $242,000 for overtime, which is the same as last year. Was that amount actually spent last year, or was it just an estimate, and what is the situation this year?


Walter Edward Harris: Is the hon. member objecting to the fact that we are not spending more?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No. I was wondering how the amount of $242,000 for overtime was made up and why you call it overtime. Is it for overtime work, is it allowed in place of leave, or what is it?


Walter Edward Harris: At the immigration points the staff work overtime to complete the week's work, and we pay them on a pro rata basis in the same manner as we have
in previous years. This represents the same amount of overtime, perhaps with a larger staff, but we prefer to do it that way rather than to put on extra staff for the small amount of overtime that must be worked.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I wondered why it was exactly the same as last year.


Walter Edward Harris: That means we have the same staff.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are they paid at overtime rates of pay?


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: I should like to ask the minister whether any special effort is being made to encourage migration from the United States, particularly from the middle west. We have large areas in the Peace river country and elsewhere in the north, and settlers from Iowa, Kansas, Ohio and the middle west seem to do very well there with the cheap land that we have in the northwestern part of Canada. According to one very good authority I am told that we can finish a hog in the Peace river country at 5 cents per pound.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Let us cut the price of bacon right away.


George Matheson Murray: You can see the possibilities in the use of that land by men who know about hogs and corn, how to put the two together and how to develop prosperous mixed farming projects. It is all very well to talk about bringing in men from Denmark. Among the best settlers we have had in Canada, and particularly in Alberta, were dairymen from Denmark who came here and assisted in developing co-operative creameries, cheese factories, and so on. We have had good men from Sweden. I can point to a good many people all through the northwest with prosperous farms, and some of them right in this house tonight, who originated in Sweden.
We have had good men from Norway, but after all we want our own Anglo-Saxon stock to be given an opportunity in the northwest where these new areas are waiting to be settled. We want Englishmen, Irishmen, Scotsmen, and let us not forget our United States friends. We had 90,000 Americans on the Alaska highway to build a lifeline to the Alaska perimeter, and we did not do anything about giving them any land. If I had been in the position of the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King I would have given each of them 160 acres of land in that country, but we did not do it. The land is there, the opportunity is there, and we should invite settlement of those areas. The French Canadian people of the province of Quebec should

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration be invited to go to northeastern British Columbia and northern Alberta. I regret that the people of Ontario refuse to turn their attention to the possibilities of that great country. United States people are well qualified to settle there. They know about tractors, and they know the mysteries of hog farming. They understand the mysteries of hog raising; they know how to build silos; they know how to clear land. Let us get as many Americans as we possibly can to come in along the Alaska highway and into these new areas.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Has the minimum wage scale been increased within the last two or three years? In other words, at what rate is a new employee engaged, and how much higher is that rate than it was last year or the year before?


Walter Edward Harris: The immigration officers are in the same position as other civil servants. They have received their annual increases and the special increases which have been granted civil servants from time to time. If my hon. friend has any particular appointment in mind I shall be glad to give him the precise figure.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Let us say you take on a man, a novice, as an inspector at a port. I assume he is paid a minimum wage, and that is the amount I should like to have.


Walter Edward Harris: The minimum is


Joseph Warner Murphy: And what was it three or
four years ago?


Walter Edward Harris: I will have to
look that up and let my hon. friend know.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Mr. Chairman, just briefly
I should like to pay tribute to the director of immigration, Mr. Jolliffe, who has held that position for a great number of years. Certainly in all the dealings I have had with him and all the dealings anyone else I know has had with him he has gone to the greatest trouble to settle our problems. The number of people who are in Canada today through the humanitarian efforts of this notable servant of Canada is very large, and I wanted to pay this small tribute to him at this time.
Now I want to ask the minister how the IRO is going to be supported next year, after the funds are exhausted. I understand that officially the IRO will wind up next year, or even within the present fiscal year. I have several questions to ask, but the first is, what is the policy of the government concerning the operations of the IRO?
My next question has to do with the displaced persons' camps in both the American

and British sectors of Germany, where there are still large numbers of people. These unfortunates are perhaps in an older age group than those who emigrated to Australia and Canada in the last few years, but we cannot consider them an indigestible group. Something must be done to solve that problem before the major question of a peace treaty with Germany can be worked out. On our responsibility as belligerents, and our responsibility from the humanitarian point of view, we must realize that there are in Germany today many thousands of people for whom work cannot be found there; but there is work for them in Canada. They are not like the young, virile people we have received from the displaced persons' camps in years gone by; still there is work for them, particularly in our large institutions. For example, I understand that a short time ago the Toronto General hospital was so short of assistance that a great many rooms had to be closed. They had not enough nurses; they had not enough ward assistants to service that great institution completely. To what extent that was true I cannot say positively, but certainly I was told of someone who could not get in the hospital because, while the rooms were available, the service could not be provided. In these camps are many people who could do ward work and the various other duties that have to be performed in these great institutions. In addition there is still a great unsatisfied demand throughout Canada for domestic servants, and I am sure that many of these people, who are perhaps in their fifties, could give satisfactory service. I believe it is our responsibility to see that something is done about them.
I now come to the people whom the Netherlands are so anxious to send to Canada for farm work. I want to ask the minister whether any special scheme has been worked out with specific reference to citizens of the Netherlands for farm work in Canada. I remember that some years ago there was a system of assisted immigration for citizens of Switzerland who came to Canada, and particularly to Manitoba. That scheme was extraordinarily satisfactory. As a matter of fact I believe the chief surgeon of- one of the principal hospitals in Winnipeg is the son of a man who came out as one of those Swiss immigrants.
I repeat that the problem of the displaced persons is not solved. I am free to admit that we in Canada have done our share and perhaps more, certainly as compared with the United States, but the problem still exists. There is no use shutting our eyes to it, because it is still there. Before any satisfactory solution of the problem of Germany can be worked out some solution must

be found to the problem of the refugees who have flooded into that country. There is work for those people in Canada today, of the sort I have suggested. Perhaps they would not be able to do active work in construction jobs or on the farms, but there is work here for people who would be prepared to help with the domestic work involved in operating pur great institutions. That is one thing. With regard to the question of importing brains, I might say that if there is one thing that was done that was not so advantageous, it was the bringing to Canada of a number of displaced persons who were extremely well educated. A great number of professional people, such as university professors, surgeons, doctors, and other highly skilled people have come to Canada and gone into domestic service for one year. After a year in domestic service, or the first service they entered upon coming to Canada, they left that service. That is quite understandable.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Does the hon. member know of any of them who stayed the year?


Agar Rodney Adamson: Yes, they stayed a year, but not one d.p. couple stayed more than their contract year. I suggest there is still a demand for this type of labourer, but the displaced persons whom we brought out did not stay. They all went into other, perhaps more remunerative work than that for which they first came out. I suggest to the minister that is a problem that is still unsolved. There are many men, women, and in many cases children, who are still in these camps. Something will have to be done about them. They cannot remain where they are. I feel that through the continued operation of the IRO, or some other international organization, we should co-operate in every way possible. I do want to suggest to the minister that there are great opportunities for displaced persons in Canada, particularly in those fields in which we are short of labour.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has asked a specific question as to what we are doing about the continuation of the operation of the IRO. Of course the IRO is not under my department.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I realize that.


Walter Edward Harris: There is a vote under external affairs, item 84, which provides for about $2 million as our contribution to the IRO. This organization was to wind up on July 31, but I believe it is being continued for some months in view of the difficulty my hon. friend has mentioned. A representative of the IRO was here early in the winter, and we discussed with him some
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration of the problems. I think I can assure the hon. member that, as I said before, we shall continue to take an interest in these people, and to share in the solution of the problem he has stated.
With respect to the Netherlands question,
I think I covered that and I do not want to quote myself.


Agar Rodney Adamson: There are so many committee meetings that I missed what the minister said.


Walter Edward Harris: Earlier in this discussion I said that there were about 3,000 Netherlands citizens who came here in 1947; 7,000 in 1948; 7,000 in 1949; and approximately 4,500 to this date this year. In almost every instance they are agricultural workers coming to this country under the Netherlands foundation. I might add that we are particularly pleased with this movement of Netherlands citizens, and we hope it will continue.


Mr. Bryce:: I should like to ask the minister how many persons Canada deported last year.


Walter Edward Harris: I shall look that up and let the hon. member have the figure.


George Matheson Murray: With respect to displaced persons, I hope I may give the house some information regarding an experiment which was made about ten years ago in bringing German settlers, that is displaced persons from the Sudetenland area to Canada. Those people were placed in my riding at Tupper Creek, which is near Dawson Creek. Some three hundred families in all were brought to Canada. They received from the British government approximately $1,500 in funds which were locked up in one of those countries from which they came-I mean their credits were standing in Britain and their money was in Czechoslovakia or some of the other areas. Those people came to Canada. They received $1,500 per family and took up land which was not considered by the average Canadian as very good land.
They have been in Canada ten years. They did not know our language. They knew nothing of our laws or our customs. What has been the result over the ten years? A community of happy, prosperous people who have contributed a great deal to the economy of that part of Canada. They have gone into dairying; they have cleared land; they have built homes. Those Germans, although many of us would say they are aliens, and possibly enemy aliens, are today part of our Canadian citizenship. They are giving a good account of themselves. I suggest to this house that is a test tube experiment. It is our responsibility to work out,
3702	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration on a much larger scale, that successful experiment which has been carried out at Tupper Creek and Dawson Creek.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, as indicated some time ago, the thing which chiefly concerns me, so far as immigration is concerned, is that the number of immigrants has been steadily dropping. I believe the same view was expressed by many other speakers. The minister has indicated that some plans are under way to try to solve the exchange difficulties which prevent more immigrants coming to this country from the British isles. Can he tell us if any plans are under consideration, or if the department has any other ideas as to how this downward trend in immigration could be stopped and an upward trend started? I think that is what most of us want to know so far as immigration is concerned.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I do not think I can say it differently than I did a moment ago. The exchange difficulties consequent upon the depreciation of the pound are, in fact, the problem which has to be solved. As I indicated before, I do not feel I should try now to explain my own thoughts as to how it could be done because they are not crystallized. But I assure the hon. member that should we come to a solution we will announce it at once.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to ask a question or two, and put a suggestion before the minister with respect to these regulations we are discussing which stand in the way of the admission of certain European nationals in the hope that he might consider the relaxation of at least one category of relatives. In many cases the husband has been a war casualty, and the brother of a relative in Canada. The wife and children of the man who was the war casualty are not admissible to Canada, and the children particularly are not admissible unless they are orphans. In this case the wife is not a sister but a sister-in-law, and I wonder if the minister would consider the relaxation of the regulations, at least to the extent of including, in the admissible class, sisters-in-law and their children, who would be blood relations to the people in Canada.


Walter Edward Harris: I would be glad to consider that. I take it the hon. member means that the applicant in Canada would be able to provide satisfactory settlement?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


Walter Edward Harris: I shall be glad to give consideration to that. The hon. member for Selkirk asks about the number of deportations. There were 416 for the fiscal year ended March 31.


William Scottie Bryce: You have increased your staff. Is there any reason for that? You have increased them from eight to nine. Four hundred and twenty do not seem to be many people for nine officers to handle. Do they do anything else? Is their sole job that of throwing people out of Canada? I could throw 420 out myself.


Jean Lesage: Shall
the item carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman-


William Scottie Bryce: Tell me something about it. I want to know.


Jean Lesage: Order.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have one particular question with regard to the details. I see that for publications and advertising the amount is $158,000 which is up from $85,000 last year. Can the minister explain what the reason is for that and what these publications and advertising consist of?


Walter Edward Harris: They actually provide for the advertising which we hope to do should we overcome the difficulties we have just been discussing. In particular we propose to make a number of motion pictures depicting scenes in Canada which would be attractive to prospective immigrants and also two publications which are known as "This is Canada" and "Canada Descriptive Atlas." The purpose is to increase the interest of persons who might come to this country.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is the minister able to make a general statement covering information to which reference was made earlier, that the number of immigrants has declined over the last three years by nearly 50 per cent and the cost of administration in Canada-that is, in the first two items I quoted, departmental administration and field inspectional service in Canada-have increased in the same period by approximately 25 per cent?


Walter Edward Harris: The increase in staff is largely due to the necessity of having inspectional service in Canada. The requirements of inspection have been increased in the last two or three years and for that reason the staff has been increased accordingly. As the hon. member pointed out, there has not been an increase in the staff abroad; but I think he will agree with me that a good base at home is desirable before we launch into the other branch of attracting immigration.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I just point out that the same provision, or the same type of inspection facilities and charges by the labour

department under this heading is also increased, so that the two departments are sharing the costs of follow-up and so on and investigation in Canada; and I cannot see any justification as yet for that substantial increase in costs when at the same time our immigration is falling and facilities overseas for arranging for immigration are apparently being reduced, if one can judge by the reduction in the estimates there. If the number were increasing, I would agree with the minister; but unless he can show that we are preparing for a program of increased immigration, I cannot agree with him that there is justification for that increase.


Walter Edward Harris: I have no hesitation in saying that we are; and I have just given an indication of the increase in one particular item.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Have any studies been made by the department as to the capacity of Canada to absorb immigration?


George Matheson Murray: As to the question of publicity, I suppose that the hon. member for Kamloops refers to advertising, does he, and propaganda?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have not mentioned it.


George Matheson Murray: The time is now ripe for this country within reason to do considerable publicity and advertising of the resources and possibilities of the country. At the present time we are hosts to the commonwealth press conference. In the city of Ottawa tonight we have some of the leading publishers of Britain and of the commonwealth countries. I would suggest to you that they are unpaid ambassadors of good will to Canada, going out to the seven seas to tell of the possibilities of this country. I particularly refer to Sir Harry Brittain, a distinguished man who was in Winnipeg in 1909, who was himself a settler in Manitoba and who brought many settlers into certain areas in Alberta at that time. I say that intelligent and constructive publicity at this time throughout the world is one of the best investments that the Canadian people could make.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the item carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: No, it is
not carried. I am still waiting for an answer.


Walter Edward Harris: We have conducted conferences, as was suggested by the hon. member for Kootenay West, with the various provincial organizations having to do with immigration. With them and through
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration our own settlement service we are studying the question of how many people we might settle here and there throughout the country. Those studies have not been concluded; but that is the only actual study that has been made or is being made at the moment.


Mr. Picard:: I have a keen interest in immigration. By consulting my files I find that, from 1940 up to the present time, I have spoken twice on the matter. My only purpose in rising now is to call to the attention of the committee the speech I made on Wednesday, April 3, 1946. As it represents entirely the opinions I still have on the matter, I will not repeat it. I am just rising for the purpose of calling that speech to the attention of the committee.


Gordon Graydon: Have you any copies of it?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I should like to ask one question. Why are the expenses in this item so high? I think the travelling expenses are $261,000 and the total travelling expenses for the whole department are $750,000.


Walter Edward Harris: In answer to the first part of the question, my recollection is that there were 106,000 different calls made by our inspectors on persons in Canada who had applied for persons abroad. That is the reason for the travelling costs. For that reason we have particularly high expenses for travelling. Every application has to be considered in the office and perhaps an inspection made out in the country by someone with respect to the settlement facilities.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Immigration branch-
52.	Field and inspectional service, Canada, $3,732,561.
Douglas Scott Harkness: On this particular item
there comes up the question which was asked particularly by the hon. member for Kamloops in connection with the fact that the major portion of the money spent with regard to immigration is spent under this particular vote, $3,733,000, whereas, as to foreign service-that is on people outside Canada whose primary duty is to get immigration into the country-we spent only $881,000. It seems to me that there is a disproportion there and that if we are going to get immigration we should have more people abroad, should be sending more people there for that purpose, and should be spending more money there instead of spending the greatest part of the money which we spend on immigration on people within Canada. That is just one general criticism of this thing which strikes one. I should like the minister to make some comment on that matter. While I am on my feet, and in order to save time, may I ask
3704	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration another question. There is an item here of $220,000 for travelling expenses this year; it was $198,000 last year. I wonder what the reason is for that. What is the necessity for such a large amount for travelling expenses in this department within Canada? We have these immigration officers stationed all across the dominion. I cannot quite see why there should be such a large amount necessary for travelling expenses?


Walter Edward Harris: I thought we
had passed that item after I had given the hon. member for Queens the explanation with respect to travelling expenses. We are on item 53, are we not?


Louis-René Beaudoin: Item 52.


Walter Edward Harris: I gave an
explanation of the number of calls made in Canada by the inspectional service. They were 106,000 last year. I think these are calls made by our inspectors at the homes of persons who have asked for a particular immigrant. For that reason we have the $240,000. On the other question of the disproportion of expenses between the staff in Canada and that abroad, I have already pointed out that we have to maintain ports of entry in Canada for the purpose of looking after not only the immigrants as such but also persons who commute, tourists and the like, and we have a much larger staff in Canada than we ever will have abroad for that reason.


William Scottie Bryce: Can the minister give the
information I asked for?


Walter Edward Harris: I did not quite
understand what my hon. friend wanted. I understood that he said we had nine persons employed to deport people.


William Scottie Bryce: Of all people I do not know why the minister should not understand me.


Walter Edward Harris: It is not that, I did not hear.


William Scottie Bryce: I want to know , why it was necessary to have an increase of from eight to nine deportation officers. The minister told me that 420 people had been deported. I think it is most unreasonable. Can the minister explain to me why it was necessary to have the increase? That is all I want to know. There has been an average of one and a half deportations a day. Does it take nine men to deport one and a half persons?


Walter Edward Harris: There is a good deal more to it than that. Four hundred and sixteen were deported. Well and good; but there are a good many more who are being held pending deportation or consideration of


appeals which they make to the minister. We have found it necessary to add one more to the staff.


Agar Rodney Adamson: How many permanent organizations are there? What is the set-up of these organizations abroad covered by this item?


Louis-René Beaudoin: We have not passed item 52 yet.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Can the minister give a break-down of the reasons for the deportation of these 416 people?


Walter Edward Harris: The reasons are published in the annual report for the fiscal year. I admit that it is not published1 yet. I would hope that my hon. friend would not expect me to go through the 416 cases now and give him the reason in each case.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I do not
expect it now, but I hope to be supplied with the information.


Walter Edward Harris: I should imagine that there is no particular pattern. I could not say that 200 were deported for the same reason. I could detail it but I would hope that my hon. friend would not ask for it.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Any particular reason?


Jean-François Pouliot: Why does the minister not deport Paul Jokelson of Montreal and Camet of Winnipeg?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Immigration branch-
53.	Field and inspectional service, abroad. $881,792.
Agar Rodney Adamson: I want to ask the minister what permanent organizations he has and where they are situated outside Canada.


Walter Edward Harris: There are not so
many. I could run through them quickly. In the British isles they are at Belfast, Dublin, Glasgow, Liverpool and London.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Can the minister say how many people are at each of these places, and whether they have a complete processing staff in each case?


Walter Edward Harris: May I complete the list? On continental Europe, Salsburg, Brussels, Paris, Karlsruhe, Athens, Rome, The Hague, Stockholm, Berne; there is also Hong Kong. I will give my hon. friend a statement of the number of employees in each case.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have one question. I see an item here for repatriation of wives and dependents of members of the Canadian armed forces, $3,000. It was $5,000 last year. I would have thought that all wives and dependents of members of the Canadian armed forces would have been repatriated by

this time. I was rather surprised to see that item. I wonder whether the minister can tell us what the reason is that we still have a vote of that kind. How many of these people were repatriated last year, and were covered by the $5,000?


Walter Edward Harris: We still have a few that we pay to bring here, and I think that is all that needs to be said.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not think that is an answer. I asked, what is the reason that we are still repatriating wives of members of the Canadian armed services. I would have thought they would have all been here before this time. How many were repatriated last year?


Walter Edward Harris: I am informed the reason is that in some cases they have not been able to make arrangements up until now for settlement in this country and they are still coming forward, and we have a vote to cover the cost. On another occasion I will give my hon. friend the figures of those brought in last year.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The minister was going to give me a break-down of the stations abroad.


Walter Edward Harris: I will do that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indian Affairs branch-
54.	Branch administration, $242,050.
Some hon. Members:: Eleven o'clock.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will take up Bill No. 310, to authorize provision of moneys to meet the deficit of the Canadian National Railways. The resolution passed today. Then we will go into supply and consider for some time the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration with the hope of concluding them quickly.


Gordon Graydon: The minister has a melancholy tone in his voice.


Alphonse Fournier: I am so anxious to proceed with the estimates of public works; after that labour, secretary of state, and the remaining items of veterans affairs.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
48.	Departmental administration, $90,620.	.
Citizenship-
49.	Citizenship registration branch, $193,035.
50.	Citizenship branch, $233,585.
Immigration branch-
51.	Administration of the Immigration Act, $750,425.
52.	Field and inspectional service, Canada, $3,732,561.
53.	Field and inspectional service, abroad, $881,792.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 16, 1950