1950-04-18

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I desire to lay on the table two statements relating to the operations of Trans-Canada Air Lines. The first is a copy of the property and equipment budget of the company for the fiscal year ending December 31, 1950. The second is a summary of the operating budget of the company, comparing the financial results of Trans-Canada Air Lines for the fiscal year 1949 with the financial forecast for the fiscal year 1949 and the financial forecast for the fiscal year 1950.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


Clarence Decatur Howe: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, inter alia, to extend the provisions of "Part II-Control of Elevators and Railways" to August 1, 1953, to extend the definition of "pool period" to include each crop year subsequent to July 31, 1950, and prior to August 31, 1953; to vary the payments by the board to producers selling and delivering wheat produced in a designated area; to extend the provisions of "Part IV-Regulation of Interprovincial and Export Trade in Wheat," to August 1, 1953; and to substitute a schedule of mills and warehouses declared works for the general advantage of Canada for the present schedule to the act.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minisier of Public Works) moved: that the house go into committee of supply.



ACTION OF POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT IN DENIAL OF USE OF MAILS

Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinlon):: Mr. Speaker, the motion that the house resolve
itself into committee of supply affords members an opportunity of bringing before the house what may be considered to be grievances. It is in that light that I bring before >
the house a matter which has been touched upon on two occasions but in my submission has not received consideration at the hands of the house, and certainly has not received from the government the consideration which the seriousness of the matter justifies.
On March 29 my leader raised the question by way of illustration of the dangers of unlimited and arbitrary powers being vested in government officials without any recourse or appeal to the courts. The subject to which I refer is of course the recent action of the deputy postmaster general in denying to certain persons in the province of Ontario the use of the mails.
The subject was again referred to in the house on April 5, when the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), at page 1562 of Hansard, put certain questions to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson). My leader said:
I wish to ask the Minister of Justice whether he has given consideration to the extent to which the Post Office Department is usurping the authority and responsibilities of the Department of Justice in acting as a court by making decisions as to the guilt or otherwise of certain people using the mails of Canada.. According to his published statement, the deputy postmaster general is deciding, without notice to the people affected, whether they may or may not use the mails.
To that inquiry the Minister of Justice made this reply:
Without in any way acquiescing in the allegations of fact which the hon. member has made in his question, I may say that the matter to which he has referred has had consideration and is still under consideration.
We have had no information whatever from the Minister of Justice as to the outcome of the consideration which his department is giving to the question. I submit it is a matter of great importance, and unless the government takes the house into its confidence and either justifies what has been done, on whatever grounds may appear to the government to justify the action, or expresses disapproval of the action taken, then I think the house has every right to feel that the matter has not received from the government the consideration to which it is entitled. Certainly when it was referred to in the house by my leader on March 29 in the statement he made at that time it was not even mentioned in any
1638	HOUSE OF
Denial of Postal Services reply by the government, and I think the attitude taken by the government on that occasion was quite cavalier.
Putting the facts briefly, they amount to this: that by decision of the deputy postmaster general-


Mr. Lapointe:: Of the Postmaster General.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Of the Postmaster General; and I am sorry it is necessary for me to raise [DOT] the question in his absence. We all regret his illness, and if the matter were not an urgent one I would have much preferred to await his return to the house. The Solicitor General is the Acting Postmaster General, and I should like to proceed with it under those circumstances.
By decision of the Postmaster General, the use of the mails was denied to some dozen or more people. I think the circumstances under which that denial came about are less important than the clear and far-reaching issue raised by the fact that the action was taken without giving any opportunity whatsoever to those concerned to take their cases to a court or other tribunal where the issues might be discussed, and where they might have an opportunity to disprove the allegations made against them.
I am not undertaking this afternoon to pass judgment, either for or against, on the actions of the persons concerned. I do not think there is any person in the house who is justified in undertaking to do so without having heard both sides of the case. I doubt if anybody in the house has heard both sides of the case. We have seen in the press the statement issued by the deputy postmaster general several weeks ago in which he said in effect that the reason for this strong action was that the persons concerned, most of whom I believe were brokers, were either sending or receiving through the mails matter designed to promote the sale of certain stocks, which matter he thought contained statements which went beyond the facts. He may or may not have been correct in that conclusion; but not only are those dozen or more people affected by the drastic action taken by the Postmaster General, but there are also a great many more who in the ordinary course are in communication with those dozen or more people through the mails.
In one case, about which I know something, the action taken of course affected the person concerned, and will probably have a very serious effect on his business. It will probably end his business, because anyone in that position simply cannot continue if he is denied the use of the mails. The point which I think should be of interest to all members of the house is that about a thousand people


were affected by the denial of the use of the mails to that one individual. Let us not think of this simply as a matter of a dozen brokers doing business. It is a question of the rights of those with whom they are ordinarily in contact and who have certain interests at stake in the light of the treatment that their mail receives. In that one case about a thousand people are involved. They are losing money, and may lose investments as a result of the action taken with respect to one man.
I emphasize again that I am not undertaking to pass judgment on the way any of these people conduct their business. No member of the house is going to look with equanimity on the attempt of anyone to use the mails for a fraudulent purpose. We have laws to deal with such cases. We have the Criminal Code, and, as to the rights between broker and client and the measure of responsibility that those engaged in the purchase and sale of stocks owe to the public, we have in all provinces-we certainly have in Ontario -securities laws and securities officials. This case may be, and no doubt is, one for the securities commission of the province of Ontario, which has ample power to deal with brokers who are carrying on their business in violation of the law or without due regard for honesty in business dealings. Therefore in my submission it is not necessary for the Post Office Department to undertake to make laws in substitution for the Criminal Code of Canada as enacted by this parliament, and in substitution for the laws of the province in relation to regulation of transactions involved in the purchase and sale of stocks and the control and regulation of the activities of those engaged in that business.
I have mentioned that in the light of this arbitrary action there is no recourse whatever to the courts on the part of those concerned. No opportunity is given them to seek, at the hands of the courts of this land, an adjudication of the question whether they are guilty of the offence charged against them. In that respect, sir, in my submission it is striking at the very heart of the freedoms that indi-' viduals enjoy in this country, at the rights that ought to be guaranteed them beyond any attack at the hands of officials of this government.
Hon. members who take the trouble to read the provisions of the Post Office Act will see that where parliament has created offences under this act, parliament has been careful to define the penalty in each case and to enact laws leaving to those charged with such offences an open door to the courts. In the action taken in this instance, however, there is no open door to the courts.

Those affected by this action on the part of the department have nowhere to go. By the action of the Postmaster General they are marked and labelled as culprits and malefactors, and are given no opportunity to place their side of the case before a properly constituted tribunal. They have no appeal whatever.
As to the spirit in which the action has been taken, I have only one observation to make, because I think it is indicative of the mentality of government officials when these drastic, sweeping and arbitrary powers are placed in their hands, far beyond challenge in any court. I am informed that the statement was made by the deputy postmaster general in [DOT]the presence of a former Liberal member of this house that he did not care what the Supreme Court of Canada or any other court might say in this matter; that he had powers given him under the act and regulations, and he would use those powers without the slightest regard for what the courts might say. If the Department of Justice is prepared to hold that the action taken by the Post Office Department in this case was within the terms of the Post Office Act or any regulations issued under it, all I have to say is that parliament ought to deplore that in enacting this legislation a previous parliament went much further than it ought to have gone, certainly much further than it would have gone, I am sure, if it had foreseen the use that would be made of those powers and the advantage that would be taken of them in this arbitrary way.
When I hear of government officials holding senior positions, having in their hands the interests not alone of these dozen or more people but of a great many other citizens doing business with them, taking that arbitrary attitude and saying: Well, the courts have no control over me, and I do not care what the courts say, then I think it is high time that parliament took cognizance of the situation and asked itself, in the first place, whether it would be justified in leaving on the statute book measures which are capable of such arbitrary use, and, in the second place, whether it should tolerate the retention in office of officials who take such a high-handed attitude. I am afraid we are seeing, in this attitude on the part of one official, the result of the schooling he has received over the years.
The extent to which this action had its inspiration in requests emanating from the United States has not yet been fully clarified. The fact of the matter is that this action accompanied somewhat similar steps taken by the United States authorities, of course without consultation with the officials of the securities commission of the province of Ontario. I am
Denial of Postal Services sure every member of this house always wants to approach matters of common concern as between Canada and the United States in a spirit of the utmost co-operation, but there are limits to the extent to which officials of the Canadian government are justified in acting at the request of officials of the United States government. Our principal responsibility is to our own people. Those who sat in the last parliament will not soon forget that an extradition treaty which would have placed Canadian citizens substantially at the mercy of the securities officials of the United States was actually submitted to a committee of this house for review. If I remember rightly, that was during the session of 1945. After a detailed and thorough investigation of that extradition treaty and its implications with respect to citizens of Canada, the external affairs committee recommended to this house that it should not be ratified or permitted to come into force in Canada. Why? Because it placed Canadian citizens virtually at the mercy of the securities laws and securities officials of the United States. I think that committee adopted a very sensible attitude in saying that the people of this country should be guided by the laws of this country. When they offend or infringe our laws, they should be dealt with according to those laws; but while residing in Canada they should not be subjected to the laws of another jurisdiction.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I say to you that this is much more than a question of the rights of some twelve people, and much more than a question of the rights of those doing business with them. When you see the Post Office Department simply stepping in and saying to a person that he shall not receive any mail, you realize how drastic that action is, and how seriously it challenges what we conceive to be the fundamental freedom of the citizens of this country. Parliament must take cognizance of this occurrence. Parliament ought to express itself as completely disapproving arbitrary actions of this kind. Parliament should say to the Post Office Department: We have laws in this country to deal with matters of this kind; if there has been an offence against the Post Office Act or against the Criminal Code, the law should be put in motion and those persons prosecuted to the limit of the law. If it is a matter of improperly imposing upon clients or those doing business with them, then I am sure the securities commission of the province of Ontario can be trusted to take the necessary action to deal with brokers who have offended against the law. But, sir, I submit that parliament has no right to tolerate a situation in which people find themselves virtually denounced, and certainly held up before the public malefactors and felons, when no opportunity whatever is

Denial of Postal Services given them to disprove the charges. If the law permits what was done in this case, the law ought to be changed. Parliament ought to put it beyond the arbitrary reach of any government official to place people in such a position that they may be virtually found guilty and denounced without having had any opportunity to submit their case to the courts of the land.


Mr. Coldwell:: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to pursue this particular matter. I wish to raise a different question.


Mr. Garson:: If my hon. friend is going to pass to another subject, perhaps I might be permitted to reply.


Major James William Coldwell: That is exactly why I mentioned it. I do not want to lose my right to speak.


Mr. Speaker:: If another subject is introduced at this time, then the house cannot revert to this subject upon this motion. _ I understand that the Minister of Justice wishes to speak on the question which was raised by the member for Eglinton?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Very well.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, that the member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) has brought up a matter which we in the Department of Justice have regarded from the outset as one of considerable importance, I think no member of the house will doubt. That the hon. member has been fair enough in his examination of the details not to pass judgment for or against until he has the facts before him, we shall also all agree.
I want to confess at once that I find myself at the moment in a position of considerable embarrassment, which arises from these facts. When this matter was brought to the attention of the Department of Justice, it appeared that some time previously the Broker-Dealers Association had interested itself in this order, and, through its counsel, Hon. Charles P. McTague, K.C., made representations to two outstanding civil servants. I was informed and believed, and the facts proved that the information was correct, that in due course Mr. McTague would write to me setting forth the considered views of the Broker-Dealers Association upon this important matter. Being desirous, so far as it lay within the power of the justice department, to hear both sides of the case, we did suspend any opinion that we might reach in the matter until after receipt of that letter. I have been waiting for the letter from Mr. McTague, and it was for that reason, amongst others, that when the question was raised by the leader


of the opposition I indicated that the matter had been under consideration and was still under consideration.
As a matter of fact the letter from Mr. McTague did come forward, but only a few minutes before noon today. I have it in my hand, but I have had no opportunity of reading it, let alone discussing it with my colleague the Acting Postmaster General, or with any of his officials or with any of the officials of my own department. The letter is four and a half pages of single-spaced typewriting. I have no doubt it deals in a comprehensive and exhaustive manner with all the important points, some of which have been touched upon by the member for Eglinton, as to why the act itself may be considered unfair from the standpoint of the broker; and, in addition, to the question whether the way in which it was invoked in the present case may also be considered unfair.
In fairness to all concerned, and as well to the members of this house, I think it would be much better for the government to make a statement on this matter after considering not only the excellent statement made by the member for Eglinton, which I am sure he himself would be the first to admit might not be as comprehensive as that of counsel who had gone into the matter thoroughly, but also in detail the arguments presented by Mr. McTague. If the members so desired we could file the McTague letter, and then make a statement in which we would take up point by point all those allegations which he makes. I suggest that is the course we should follow. I would hope then that the judgment which my friend the member for Eglinton has so far reserved might be exercised on a complete statement of the facts and the law; because it then would be worth while for him to exercise his judgment. He would not then be making the statements he has made this afternoon, which I think with all respect he would find some difficulty in supporting, about what Mr. Turnbull, the deputy postmaster general, is supposed to have said to some person concerning his position in relation to the superior courts. He would not then make the statements he has made concerning the position of the people other than dealers who are affected by these orders, nor would he make the slightest suggestion that this order was made at the request of the authorities of the United States of America.
As the member for Eglinton has indicated, and I am in entire agreement with him, this is an important matter, involving, amongst other things, that most important question of individual rights of the subject. It is a

matter in respect of which I think it is desirable that we have a careful statement of the law and facts before we reach any sort of judgment, even the collateral judgments such as my friend appears to have reached. I suggest therefore, Mr, Speaker, that within a day, or perhaps two days, I should on a similar occasion on going into committee of supply, after conferring with the Post Office Department as well as with our law officers, and after consideration of the full arguments which Mr. McTague has developed, make a statement first of all of the law and the facts, and then examine these important points which my hon. friend has raised.
Let us go into the merits of the section involved, as well as the question whether the action which has been taken in this regard was within the law as it now stands. Perhaps the most important question of all is whether the set of facts with which the Postmaster General was dealing warranted the drastic action which he took-because the action was certainly drastic, under powers which are drastic. It may well be, and indeed I suspect it may prove to be the case, that the set of facts upon which that action was taken were rather serious, even heinous. I am not suggesting for a moment that the matter should be prejudged. Indeed, as the member for Eglinton pointed out, it is desirable that it should not be. I think the proper method is to meet the arguments which we have in this letter, and indeed the arguments of my hon. friend as well, point by point, both as to the law and as to the facts, when we shall have had a reasonable opportunity of considering them.



COST OP LIVING


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, the question which I shall raise this afternoon is one which closely affects the lives of a large number of Canadian citizens. I refer to the considerable increase in the cost of living over the last year or two.
I recall that in November, 1947, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), at a press conference, stated that he expected the index of the cost of living to go up another couple of points, after which it might settle at somewhere between 140 and 145; and that if it remained about there he would consider the situation pretty good. That is as reported in the local press of November 5, 1947.
On March 1, 1949, the cost of living index in this country had risen to 159-2. The last available figure published as at March 1 of this year is 163-7, the highest cost of living index in the history of this country. When we remember that certain farm commodities are being reduced in price, and
Price Control
that the costs of farm production are being maintained or in some instances increased; when we remember that the wage worker, finding his pay envelope increasingly inadequate to meet the needs of his home, is asking for increased wages; that there are thousands of superannuated pensioners from the civil service, from industry and from other institutions, and many thousands of persons living on old age pensions or blind pensions, we can understand how this cost of living affects them all. In addition, of course, there are many thousands whose incomes are fixed in various ways. Investments which they made or annuities which they bought during the years of their productive labour, believing that they would have then sufficient to maintain them in the later years of life, are now shown to be inadequate to meet their current needs. Consequently in our opinion the House of Commons should give some attention to the sharp increases in the cost of living.
I have on my desk a publication issued by the welfare council of greater Toronto, a semi-official organization. The document is entitled "A Guide to Family Spending in Toronto, Canada, 1949". According to the index, the cost of living in Toronto is among the highest in Canada, but it is not the highest; for according to the index figures published by the dominion bureau of statistics the cost of living in the city of Montreal is slightly higher than in the city of Toronto. For an average family, which is usually considered to be a family of five, and taking the Department of Labour's own budget for supplies-I do not mean the financial budget, but the budget of things that a family requires in order to live decently-we find that, taking the index of 1935 to 1939 as 100, at that time the cost of a proper standard of living for such a family would have been $1,542, whereas in November last the cost of the same commodities to such a family would have been $2,445.29. Consequently one can see the extent to which the cost of living has soared over these last years. The Minister of Finance stated in November, 1947, that he felt the cost of living would level out at somewhere between 140 and 145; it now stands at over 163, therefore requiring a still larger income than that computed by the welfare council of greater Toronto as of November of last year.
The Liberal party, the party in power, had a national convention in August, 1948, in this city, at which, among other things, they adopted a program for their party. One of the planks of that program was entitled

Price Control
"Employment and a high standard of living". It was divided into a number of sections, and section (f) stated:
That where price increases in any field have proven to be unreasonable, selective price controls should be re-imposed for the protection of the consumer.
That was the statement of policy laid down by the party which today forms the majority party in this country and is the party from which the government has been selected. That was a definite statement of policy as recently as August, 1948. Since that time the cost of living has increased sharply, so much so that when we look at the report that was made to this house by the parliamentary committee on prices which sat for some weeks in the session of 1948 and presented its report to parliament on Friday, June 25, 1948, and realize how little has been done to protect the Canadian public in relation to the cost of living and the standard of living, we can only say that the government not only has neglected to fulfil the pledge it made to the Canadian people in August, 1948, but has not carried out the recommendations that were presented by the committee on June 25, 1948.


Mr. Martin:: Which recommendations were not carried out?


Major James William Coldwell: The recommendations of the parliamentary committee.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Which ones?


Major James William Coldwell: I will tell you in a moment. First of all, it was suggested that a royal commission on prices should be set up.


Mr. Knowles:: And prices have gone sky-high since then.


Major James William Coldwell: The royal commission
reported, and prices have skyrocketed ever since. Indeed, the recommendations of that royal commission added little or nothing to the findings of the parliamentary committee that were tabled in this house, as I have said, on June 25, 1948.
Then it was suggested that the combines commissioner should be provided with more money in order that he might have a larger staff to look into the possible cases of price fixing and combinations in restraint of trade. We know, first of all, what happened to that combines commissioner. He resigned in protest because the flour milling report, dealing with a commodity that touches the lives of all our citizens, was suppressed for many months and was not brought to light until I asked about the resignation of the commissioner and for the production of the report. I am not going to thresh old straw by going into that story. I am merely reminding the house that certainly nothing was done.

Indeed when I look at the estimates of the department this year and I note that instead of three assistant commissioners, as we had formerly, we are now to have only two under the Combines Investigation Act, it does not look as though the combines commissioner's office is going to be more efficient and able to undertake more investigations than the commissioner was able to undertake in the past.
Since my hon. friend asked me what recommendations of the parliamentary committee had not been carried out, let me review them. I have already mentioned the first two. The third recommendation was to amend the regulations to permit action on profiteering. No action on profiteering has been taken by the government of Canada so far as I know, and yet we have seen profits of some industrialists and of some organizations increasing year by year ever since this report was placed upon the table.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker-


Major James William Coldwell: I did not interrupt my hon. friend last night. He resented interruptions last night, and I do not propose to allow interruptions this afternoon. He can make his speech when I sit down.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not blame you.


Major James William Coldwell: Recommendation No. 4 was: Remove the import restrictions on fruits and vegetables. That has been done. Then it was recommended that there should be a special tax on unreasonable profits. When I look at some of the profits that have been made-* and I am not going into them because no doubt they will be dealt with by someone else in the current budget debate-I would say that over the last two years, indeed in the last several years, the profits that have been made in this country have been unreasonably high. Let us bear in mind that there is no excess profits tax today, either to bring revenue to the country for our social security measures, or to control the excess or unreasonable profits to which this report refers.


Mr. Sinclair:: Nor in Britain either.


Major James William Coldwell: I am living in Canada, and I am talking about Canada. I do not see why that should be injected into the discussion when as a matter of fact the cost of living in the United Kingdom has risen only a few points.


James Sinclair: Thanks to Marshall aid.


Major James William Coldwell: Compared with the great increase in the cost of living in this country over the last year or two.


James Sinclair: Thanks to Marshall aid.


Major James William Coldwell: My hon. friend says, "Thanks to Marshall aid". I am not going to be diverted into a discussion of what happens in the United Kingdom, in Yugoslavia, or anywhere else. I am going to deal with conditions in my own country. If my hon. friend wants to find an alibi by looking elsewhere, of course that is a very convenient way of trying to shelve an awkward question. I do not propose to be diverted in that way.


James Sinclair: We have heard nothing but this in the last ten years.


Major James William Coldwell: Recommendation No. 6 was to legislate for uniform business accounting. I have not seen such legislation. Recommendation No. 7 recommended the disclosure of information about inventory reserves deducted in determining profits. Again I have not found any evidence of that having been done. Recommendation No. 8 suggested in some cases the reimposition of controls and subsidies. Certainly nothing has been done in that regard. As a matter of fact, beneficial controls have been to a very large extent removed during the last year or two. The last one, which affected very gravely the cost of living of the average Canadian citizen, was of course the sharp increase allowed in rents last December. According to the press-and my own contacts confirm this-those who had housing accommodation to rent usually increased the rentals to the limit of the permission given by the government.
There was of course recommended as No. 9 the removal of the special excise taxes. They were removed. Let me also add that there is an eight per cent sales tax on a very long list of Canadian commodities. It is true the people do not know they are paying the eight per cent tax as they know they are paying the three per cent tax in British Columbia, or will know that they are paying the four per cent tax in New Brunswick, or the three per cent tax in Saskatchewan, or the four or five per cent tax in Quebec. But let me remind the house that this parliament imposed an eight per cent sales tax on a long list of commodities which do affect the cost of many of the things that the people of this country have to buy; while the special excise tax has been removed, the sales tax remains and pyramids to twelve or fifteen per cent, or even more, when the consumer pays.
The tenth recommendation was that the government give close consideration to the 55946-105
Price Control
question of revising the present rent controls with a view to removing the causes of individual cases of hardship. Then the committee went on to say:
The committee wishes to emphasize its opposition to any wholesale removal of rent controls at this time.
It may be argued that rent controls were not removed, but the ceiling was lifted to such an extent that it amounted to a removal. In some instances rents may have gone higher had they been removed; even of that I am not sure. In any event the committee recommended opposition to any wholesale removal of rent controls at this time. I noticed that when the question was before the Supreme Court of Canada whether the federal government had the right to impose rent control, Mr. Justice Rand said that, in his opinion, the immediate removal of controls would result in a chaotic situation, so far as rents in this country were concerned.
Recommendation No. 11 suggested cooperation with the provinces to protect the consumers. I do not know of any co-operation with any of the provinces with that end in view. Recommendation No. 12 read that in removing embargoes on food exports, the supply situation in our own country should be studied in order that a proper balance might be maintained between producers and consumers. Again I have not noted anything effective being done along that line.
One other recommendation was that the dominion bureau of statistics publish a breakdown of the consumer's dollar and sales, and also the income and net profits of principal industries. I have before me at the moment a report of a survey which was taken on December 3 of last year, indicating that the Canadian welfare council estimated that some people in Canada were paying as high as eighty per cent of their income for rent. I should like to know how the other twenty per cent would meet the increased cost of living, and would give the family a reasonable standard of living, if as high as eighty per cent of the family income goes in rent.
I think every intelligent person will agree with recommendation No. 14, that the only permanent solution to the problem of high prices is increased production. The interesting thing about this however is that in Canada we have seen the costs of commodities rising in the face of vastly improved machinery and increased production. By the use of improved machinery, manpower has become

Price Control
more efficient, and there has been greater output, both actual and potential, of consumer goods, but at the same time prices have increased. We ask why?
One is prone to ask why more of these recommendations have not been carried out. There were fourteen, but only three have been implemented. The last recommendation is one with which every intelligent person would seemingly agree, but it has proved to be false in its conception. The reason for this should be thoroughly investigated. I take it that this is one reason why we have a Combines Investigation Act with a combines investigation commissioner and assistants in the form of deputy commissioners.
All across the country we hear protests against the high cost of living. Recent increases in the cost of meat, tea, coffee, and so on, are increases which the general public simply cannot understand. I do not seem to be able to find a clipping I had from the Globe and Mail of last month, but I can remember what was in it. We were told that the price of livestock had increased one cent a pound on the hoof, while the cost to the retailer had gone up from eight cents a pound for the cheaper cuts to thirteen cents a pound for the better cuts. I am aware that the packer and retailer must charge more than one cent a pound, because there is a difference between the weight of an animal on the hoof and its weight after it is killed and dressed. But the spread seems to be amazingly large.
All across the country people are asking why coffee has gone up to around $1 a pound, and tea has increased in price by four cents a pound within the past few days. There must be an explanation. It may be that there are certain crop failures or certain shortages here and there, but that is scarcely borne out by what you read in the United States periodicals, that some of the large importers in that country actually have an oversupply of coffee, and that the crop last year was better than it had been in the previous year.
Be that as it may, the government promised, through the party which supports it and from which the government was formed, in August, 1948, just before the general election, that effective steps would be taken to meet this crisis in the cost of living. Let me remind the house that that was not a new policy being placed before the Canadian people by the party in power. If you look at the advertising in June, 1945, from which I quoted once before, you will find that at that time the people of Canada were asked to let the Liberal party finish its work. Among the items of work that it wanted to finish was

the protection of the living standards of the Canadian people. The work which it did finish was to remove any beneficial controls or subsidies and allow the cost of living to soar far beyond anything that had been expected.
It is difficult to understand just what is happening in this country, although when I look over the earnings, after taxes and depreciation, of some of our industrial and distributing agencies, it becomes easier to understand. As long as these things continue we shall have demands from our agricultural producers for better prices for their commodities, and demands from our workers for higher wages in order to meet the cost of living. Thus a spiral is created and we are faced with still further increases in the cost of living.
Wherever living costs have been allowed to run riot following the war, they have gone up by leaps and bounds. I am sure that anyone who has followed the sharp increases in western Europe when the controls and subsidies were discontinued will have noticed what happens when there is competition among those who have money to buy commodities which are either in control of combines or in short supply.
I wish to move in amendment to the motion, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That all the words alter the word "that" to the end of the question be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"this house regrets the failure of the government to implement the promise of the Liberal party, which was given to the people of Canada in August, 1948, to reimpose selective price controls for the protection of the consumer in any field where prices prove to be unreasonable."
It will be noted that I have used the language of the declaration by the Liberal party at its convention in August, 1948. The actual wording of that declaration was:
That where price increases in any field have proven to be unreasonable, selective price controls should be reimposed for the protection of the consumer.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that price increases over a wide field have proved to be unreasonable, and that the findings of the special committee set up in 1948 to review price spreads and price increases have been disregarded by the government. I might have moved an amendment to that effect but I thought it would be infinitely better to use the language of the government party itself in the amendment I have moved.


James Sinclair: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) is away today, so perhaps I should comment briefly

on one or two of the points which the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) has raised. Hon. members of the house will appreciate that the amendment is a complete surprise to me and therefore I have not had the same amount of time for preparation as the hon. member.
The gist of the early part of his speech was to the effect that the Minister of Finance had expressed the hope in 1947 that thf cost of living of that day would pretty well level out and hold at that level. Such a hope of course was the hope of the Canadian people at that time. We were passing through a very difficult transitional period at the end of a war. We have already had some discussion of this matter during the present session in the debate on the transitional powers bill which was passed before the Easter recess.
It was hoped first of all in 1945 that one year would be sufficient for our economy to adjust itself to peace, but for reasons far beyond the economic powers of this country, because of world conditions, we found it necessary to extend the transitional powers each year although each year we whittled away at the powers granted to the government. Therefore when the Minister of Finance expressed that hope in 1947 he was expressing the same sort of hope as was expressed by parliament in 1945 when we passed the transitional powers act for only one year.
On the subject of prophecy, I might remind the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar that he is somewhat of a prophet in his own right. I use these examples only to show how easy it is for a prophet to mislead his listeners even though he may have the best intentions in the world. I can remember in the spring of 1945, when the hon. member of course was heading into an election, hearing the C.C.F. crying blue ruin and the hon. member prophesying that by April of that year there would be 100,000 unemployed in the country. When April came the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) stood up and said that we were crying for labour. I can remember his prophecy in the spring of 1945 that the people of Canada would turn away from the government and elect the socialist party as they had in Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand. Hon. members will recall the endless praises he used to heap on the wonderful management given by the socialist governments of those countries. We can remember his prophecy in the spring of last year that the C.C.F. was going to be the official opposition, that it was sweeping the country. The things this government had done to follow out a process of orderly decontrol were the very 55946-1051
Price Control
things which the hon. member and his colleagues used as their propaganda across the country, but if there was one answer given last June it was the answer that the people did not want the type of socialist planning that was' offered, that they did approve of the policy of orderly decontrol which this government has carried out since 1945.
I want to turn now to another point which is an old subject to the hon. member and his followers. I refer to the matter of profits increasing. He said that profits of Canadian companies had again increased last year. Mind you, he would much rather stand up in the house, pick up Moody's and say: The profits of Canadian companies have decreased again last year which shows that the government is 'bad. It shows we are heading into ruin and the depression which the C.C.F. party have hoped for for so long. The fact that profits of Canadian companies have increased is also a factor in this policy of decontrol because our national income has increased each year and so has our gross national production.


Mr. Noseworthy:: So has unemployment.


James Sinclair: Then he went on to deal with the question of excess profits. That has been used by his party on every possible occasion, and I should like to refresh his memory of what the people he used to idolize, the British Labour government, have done about excess profits. I cannot use better words than were used in 1945 by Hugh Dalton, then chancellor of the exchequer, and one of the great men of the Labour party school of thinking, because after all he was professor of public finance at the London School of Economics. He removed the excess profits tax from British industry a year before we had even started to do so in this house. I want to read some of the remarks he made.


Major James William Coldwell: There is a profit control in effect in Great Britain now.


James Sinclair: Listen to me; you have had your say. You were objecting to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) interjecting into your speech. The words I will quote are not my words. They are the words of a man who was at that time chancellor of the exchequer in a Labour government. Speaking in the budget debate in the British House of Commons on the 23rd of October, 1945-we removed our excess profits tax in 1947-Mr. Dalton had this to say: This tax, E. P. T., at the rate of 100 per cent, is the perfect tax for a short war, but as the war period lengthens, and still more as we enter upon the post-war period, it becomes less and less satisfactory in its general character and incidence. The rate of standard profit in relation to which the excess for taxation purposes is calculated is based on a certain year, and as the date of that standard

Price Control
profit recedes, the tax becomes less and less equitable, as between different businesses, and in particular, falls with increasing and unjust severity, as the years go by, upon businesses with a low standard. Moreover, once the standard profit has been earned, this tax encourages extravagant and wasteful outlay, and even downright dishonesty, since if this expenditure were not incurred it would be the treasury and not the owners of the business who would take the money. Under those conditions this tax works against incentive and against efficiency.
He goes on for another two columns and then he says he is going to reduce the tax from 100 per cent to 80 per cent. Then he comes back to the house the following year, and on April 9, 1946, he announced the total repeal of even the 80 per cent tax. Mr. Dalton refers first of all to his remarks of the previous year. He said:
I said then the ''E.P.T., at the rate of 100 per cent, is the perfect tax for a short war"-and I believe that still . . .
Then he goes on with his quotation from his previous year's speech as follows:
". . . but as the war period lengthens and, still more, as we enter upon the post-war period, this tax works against incentive and against efficiency."
He then goes on to say:
Further reflection has not weakened my opinion on this matter. I now propose to repeal E.P.T. as from 31st December next.
The excess profits tax was repealed in Great Britain a year before ours was. For the very reason that the excess profits tax does work against incentive the British did exactly the same thing as we did. Our standard rate for corporation tax was 18 per cent plus the excess profits tax. As you know, the standard tax has now been raised to 38 per cent, 33 per cent federal and 5 per cent provincial in eight of the provinces, and 7 per cent in Ontario and Quebec.
The excess profits tax is a great thing to use out in the country to whip up a country audience to make them believe that if the C.C.F. were in power they would reimpose it. The British government removed that tax a year before we did for the very reason that far from being a source of income it was actually holding back industrial development in that country.
I come now to the matter of stabilization of the cost of living. I am quite sure that most members of the house have had fewer letters about the cost of living in the last year than at any other period since the end of the war. The hon. member referred to the point in the Liberal convention platform of August, 1948, which had to do with trying to hold the cost of living at that level. In August, 1948, the cost of living index in Canada stood at 157-5. Today, as the hon. member pointed out, it is 163-7. This last figure, as the hon. member mentioned, includes the increases

resulting from the last measure of rental decontrol. Therefore we have a rise of six points in a year and a half. When we remember the actual increases in the cost of the great bulk of commodities we must import from other nations, which go into the products used by our people and which naturally affect the cost of living; when we remember also that wages and salaries have not stood still since 1948: then I think the people of this country who are reasonably minded will say that is not a bad record.
That is especially so when we compare it with the records of other free countries, not other countries which have been subsidized by that great American generosity known as Marshall aid. In that regard I might remind the hon. member of the words of the deputy prime minister of Great Britain, Mr. Herbert Morrison, who at the trade union convention a year ago said it was because of the very generous Marshall aid that they had been able to hold their cost of living at such a level. That is due also in part, of course, to the great aid that has been given by this country, aid we do not at all regret having given but aid we do not like having flung back in our teeth as evidence of how successful Britain has been in holding down the cost of living.
I do not think we need again go over this question of rents. We have had two full discussions of that subject, one last session when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) announced further increases under the policy of decontrol, increases which occasioned great debate in this house at that time and which were also debated from one end of the country to the other, and the other this spring when before Easter the minister announced that the federal government was going to ask for control over rents for only thirteen months more. At that time he reminded the house not of what Mr. Justice Rand had said but of what the Supreme Court of Canada said, that in their opinion we had only the right over orderly decontrol from the war emergency, and that otherwise the provinces had the right to control rentals. Two of the provinces have assumed that obligation; and it may well be that if next January there are still localities in this country which need rental control, the provinces will step in and administer such controls in those areas.
Then the hon. member went along to the sales tax, which is second only to the excess profits tax in popularity as a whipping boy as far as he is concerned. Once again I am not going to quote any Liberal or Conservative in public life; I am going to quote the Labour chancellor of the exchequer in Great Britain. I am only repeating what I put on

record a year ago, when hon. members were attacking the federal sales tax. It is true that we have a federal sales tax, but it is also true that this tax has very little effapt on the cost of living index, since almost all food items and all building construction items are exempt from the federal sales tax, as well as from other taxes. However, here again is Mr. Hugh Dalton speaking to the British House of Commons, which of course includes Labour and Conservative and a few Liberal members, and also I think preaching the gospel to his socialist followers all over the world. This was at page 2204 of British Hansard for 1946:
There is an old-fashioned saying that indirect taxation is worse than direct taxation. I have never believed it; I always thought it a slipshod way of talking and thinking. I used to tell Lord Snowden that I did not believe it.
He goes on to explain the various levels of the sales tax in Great Britain, and it is very heavy. Then he continues:
But in the next few years, and I expect for considerably longer, it will, in my view, be advantageous to retain a tax on purchases, exempting wholly from the tax certain of the more necessary commodities-
Our range of exemptions is much wider than the British range.
-gradually extending the range of untaxed articles-
We have done that in every budget we have brought down, and even the budget brought down just before Easter contains further exemptions.
-and lowering the rate on a number of other articles-
The hard fact is that we need the revenue from sales tax to support our present federal expenditures.
The hon. gentleman was good enough to recall that we had removed special excise taxes in the last budget. The tenor of his speech was to the effect that there was great alarm in the country over this mounting cost of living. Hon. members who are actually in daily contact with their constituents, and hon. members who have just returned from their homes, I think will appreciate as I do that this is one of the things least discussed at the moment by our people. They know that this levelling out process is pretty well over, that we have gotten away from this false freezing of our economy that we had to carry out in time of war by rental controls, by wage controls, by price controls and so on. As we have gotten away from it and have allowed our economy to act freely, we have finally come to this level of about 162 or 163; and during that period our wage levels have risen correspondingly.
Price Control
So I say to hon. members that the objective of the party in 1945, an orderly decontrol and a departure from those special administrations and boards, price fixings, subsidies and so on, back to the condition where our economy is that of a buyers' and sellers' market, has been fairly well realized, and I say this government has no reason not to be proud of the work it has done in this respect in the last five years.


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) wanted to be fair and state the facts correctly, even if it meant losing an argument. So I am going to read him a word or two from this little book, which incidentally is an official handbook of the Labour party in Great Britain. While I do not think the situation in Great Britain at the moment has very much to do with the amendment that has been moved, I do want to put on record the facts with respect to the taxation of profits in Great Britain. I am not going back as far as my hon. friend went; I am going to give facts which are current.
Profits tax: the tax on distributed profits was raised from 5 per cent to 12J per cent in the 1947 budget.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: What are you reading from?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I just described it. It is a speakers' handbook of the Labour party for 1948-49, and I presume is an official document.


Mr. Fraser:: That would not be an election handbook, would it?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Well, I take it that even my hon. friend would use facts in promotion of his own cause during an election campaign.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: But some parties do not use them.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: As far as I am concerned I try to stick to the facts.


James Sinclair: If the hon. member would permit me-


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Price Control
That was said in the British House of Commons on April 6, 1948. Then there are some quotations from Hugh Dalton, who was mentioned by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, which I am sure do not bear out the contentions of my hon. friend. I do not intend to read them. In rising I did not expect to do more than put these facts on the record, but before concluding let me say that if the hon. member for Coast-Capilano is so fortunate as to have constituents who do not feel the pinch of the cost of living in these days, I personally am not in that favourable position. During the Easter recess I heard the moans coming from these householders who were having difficulty in making ends meet. I think the cost of living in this country is one of the most serious things with which its citizens are faced at the moment.


James Sinclair: The hon. member questioned the veracity of the authorities I quoted, so perhaps I should have the right to put him straight. I quoted from the official report, British Hansard, on excess profits, while the hon. member is quoting from Labour party propaganda. The hon. member is referring to a different thing, the ordinary corporation taxes. When the British had a 5 per cent tax, we had an 18 per cent tax. The British tax is now 25 per cent and our tax is 38 per cent, showing we do tax corporations more than the British.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I am not concerned with the tax situation in Britain; I am worried about taxation in Canada. This amendment relates to the situation in Canada, and nowhere else. On that basis, it should be adopted.


James Sinclair: That is a different story.


Mr. Mitchell:: I was paired, Mr. Speaker, with the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was paired, Mr. Speaker, with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). If I had voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Cardiff:: I was paired, Mr. Speaker. Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.
Motion (Mr. Fournier, Hull) agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
48. Departmental administration, $90,620.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
183. Departmental administration, $321,042.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
358. Departmental administration, $370,640.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
Alphonse Fournier: May we revert to government notices of motions?



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT


Hon. F. G. Bradley (Secretary of Stale) moved:: That a special committee consisting of Messrs. Applewhaite, Argue, Balcer, Boisvert, Boucher, Brooks, Browne (St. John's West),. Cameron, Cannon, Carroll, Dewar, Diefenbaker, Douglas, Fair, Fournier (Maisonneuve-Hosemont), Fulford, Garland, Green, Hellyer, Herridge, Jeffery, Kent, Mc-William, Power, Valois, Viau, Ward, Welbourn, White (Middlesex East), Wylie, be appointed to study the several amendments to the Dominion Elections Act, 1938, and amendments thereto, suggested by the chief electoral officer, to study the said act, to suggest to the house such amendments as the committee may deem advisable, and report from time to time, with power to send for persons, papers and records and to print the proceedings and that the provision of section 1 of standing order 65 be waived in respect to this committee.


Mr. Graydon:: In view of the fact that there are several amendments to be dealt with by the committee, I have no doubt that, before the motion passes, the Secretary of State will want to give a detailed explanation of the amendments with which the committee intends to deal.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I assume, of course, that from time to time in Canada, as in other sovereign countries, it becomes necessary under our system of democracy to make amendments, suited to the changing times, in the method and the details of holding our general and by-elections. There is a necessity at the present time to make a number of technical amendments. I presume these will be suggested by the chief electoral officer when he appears before the committee.
Dominion Elections Act He is more fully aware of these matters than I can possibly be, and he will explain in detail to the committee the necessity for these various technical changes.
There are one or two substantial changes which may perhaps be regarded as of a more important character. One is as a result of the recent entry of Newfoundland as the tenth province of Canada. Hon. members will recall that under the act which confirmed the union between Canada and the tenth province special provision was made for the holding of the first election in the province. That particular provision is now spent, and because of peculiar climatic conditions which obtain in the northern portion of the province at any rate, amongst other things, it is necessary that the period elapsing between nomination day and polling day should be 28 days rather than 14. I believe a somewhat similar condition exists in the riding of Saguenay in the province of Quebec.
Then again, on the technical side, hon. members will recall that some difficulty was created at the last election as a result of the numbers being offset from, I think it was, a portion of the ballot paper onto the sheet underneath, which made it possible to identify a voter if an effort were made to do so. I understand that the chief electoral officer proposes to suggest to the committee some changes which would avoid any possibility of such identification being made.
A number of other points will be brought before the committee by the chief electoral officer. At various times he has received letters from organizations and individuals suggesting changes of various sorts in our existing election law. All these documents will be submitted to the committee for its consideration. The chief electoral officer will not purport to suggest amendments to the committee because that is the business of the committee, but he will be there to assist and to point out the difficulties which he has discovered.
The terms of reference are identical with the terms of reference of the last elections committee. It is anticipated that a full examination of the whole situation will be undertaken for the purpose of bringing our election law up to date and in accordance with present needs.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there are one or two references I should like to make to the setting up of this committee and the powers which it is to have. As the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley) has said, the powers of the committee are to be wide enough to permit a general review of the Dominion Elections Act. I am surprised that, in outlining what was to

Dominion Elections Act be brought before the committee, he said nothing about the necessity of amending the act so that what recently took place in Annapolis-Kings in connection with the defence vote will not recur in this country.
The report of Mr. Justice Doull and Mr. Justice MacQuarrie, to be found in Votes and Proceedings of March 6, reveals a condition of affairs that ought not to be permitted to continue. When one realizes that a person was declared elected to this House of Commons by a majority of four votes and that 134 service personnel voted without any justification in that constituency, then something seriously wrong has been revealed. One begins to wonder in how many other constituencies illegal votes were cast in the general election.
The recommendation is made by one of the commissioners, Mr. Justice Doull, that some changes ought to be made. The report indicates that the commanding officer in one of the polling divisions, at Greenwood air station, had no regard for the administration of the law and indeed showed no sbnse of regard for the act and the necessity of voters voting where they were entitled to vote.
Having regard to this flagrant abuse of the law, I am rather surprised that parliament has not received an intimation from the Secretary of State as to what is being done to prevent a recurrence of the kind of thing that happened in Annapolis-Kings. No matter how one looks at the matter, 134 voters voted illegally and it was only after proceedings were taken that the votes were found to be illegal.
One thing this committee should do is to recommend that Mr. Justice Doull's report be carried out to the end that in the current by-elections a like condition of affairs shall not be permitted to exist. In this particular instance the commanding officer certainly did hot regard the regulations as binding upon him; indeed, according to my reading of the report, he regarded them as though they were made to be broken and that he as commanding officer had the supreme power of determining how the votes should be cast and in what manner the act should be lived up to.
One of the first recommendations that should be carried out is that the vote among service personnel should be taken out of the hands of the commanding officer and placed under the responsibility of the electoral officer. That is the only way in which noninterference with the free right of the defence personnel to vote can be guaranteed and assured. I am going to quote only one portion of the report where Mr. Justice Doull said:
At Greenwood air station the officer who was In charge of taking the vote was a commissioned

officer who appeared to have good clerical ability and to be an intelligent and competent officer, but he seems to have totally failed to appreciate that he was bound to follow the regulations.
Our election law should be administered according to the act and not according to the caprice of a commanding officer of a unit. This matter should be submitted to the committee at the earliest possible date so that the necessary changes may be made in the law to conform with the recommendations of this judge.
There is another matter I should like to refer to, the general question of assuring a democratic election in this country. In the present parliament 105 members out of 262- I am one of them-were elected by a minority vote, and in the last parliament there were 144 minority candidates out of a total of 245. Such a condition does not carry out the democratic spirit of our elections act. If we go back to the promise made in 1932 by the then prime minister we find that it was promised that a system of voting would be brought into being to assure that the democratic will of the majority would be carried into effect.
I know that we would not have much time to do it during the present session, but I should like to see this committee enter upon a lengthy, complete and thorough investigation of the question of having the single transferable vote in this country. I know there are two sides to the question. On the one hand we endeavour to secure a democratic result by a majority vote, and on the other hand the experience, where the single transferable vote has been in effect, has not been as encouraging as many of its proponents would lead us to believe. It is in effect in rural constituencies in the province of Alberta and also in the province of Manitoba. It has been in effect for several general provincial elections. It assures the democratic result that the majority shall prevail provided, as has been the case in Australia, that each voter is required compulsorily to vote his second, third and fourth choices, as the case may be. I know the argument against compulsory voting and requiring an individual to vote his second, third and fourth choices. None the less the system has not worked out as favourably as many have contended because of the fact that there has been no compulsory requirement.
I have looked into the matter to some extent and have also secured considerable information from Mr. John R. MacNicol, a former distinguished member of this house and a student of voting procedure. I find that in five general elections in Alberta a total of 241 rural ridings were contested by plural votes, and where there has been a re-examination of the ballots only in six cases has there been any change in the result. That is not

very many out of 241; nevertheless it shows that in six cases the democratic desire of the majority would not have been achieved except for the introduction of this system.
In the province of Manitoba it has been used in elections in 245 rural ridings, and only in four has there been any change in the result because of re-examination. In four ridings, in any event, there would have been in effect the election of a member who did not democratically represent the majority.
When I look at the division among the membership of the House of Commons I ask myself whether the time has not come for a full examination of our 'electoral law. At the last election the Liberal party secured 2,926,029 votes, the Progressive Conservative party 1,742,233 votes, the C.C.F. party 782,321 votes, the Social Credit party 224,781 votes, and all others 172,900. The distribution of membership in the house does not represent the attitude of the people of the dominion as a whole. For that reason I suggest that this committee should have experts brought before it on the subject of electoral reform to the end that consideration be given to the adoption of this system or any other system that will effectuate the democratic wish of the majority.
The .ordinary system has been tried in Australia and has been departed from in connection with senatorial elections because it has not worked out. There is the weighted system to which no extended reference need be made at this time except to say that the weighted system under the single transferable vote might in effect remove some of the difficulties that have been found to exist in Alberta and Manitoba as a result of experience.
There is one other matter that I think should be considered by this committee, and that is the question of redistribution. It is all very well to say that in the past the majority in power has determined the boundaries of constituencies on redistribution. I can speak with some authority on the subject of what the intention was in connection with redistribution and also what the result was in spite of the intention of some of those who were active in the matter of redistribution. I say that the time has come to consider the adoption of a system of redistribution of constituencies every ten years as the population changes, not in accordance with political considerations or personal bias, but that scientific consideration should be given to redistribution on the basis of population by a commission composed of the chief electoral officer, the surveyor general and one judge or more. No political considerations would be involved in such a commission. I would place them 55S->6-106
Dominion [DOT]Elections Act in a position where they would consider the whole matter of redistribution without denying to parliament the final say in connection therewith.
There are many anomalies in our election law today so far as redistribution is concerned. Some hon. members represent few constituents; others represent many. I am referring now to rural constituencies. Since confederation the rule has been that, so far as cities are concerned, they always have more population than rural ridings. I feel now, with redistribution at least two years removed, the time has come to look into the matter of establishing a commission which would be free from political considerations to determine this question, not with a view to the political outcome in the ensuing election but in order to assure that democratic procedure shall be maintained in our country.
There is one other matter to which I should like to direct the attention of the Secretary of State. He is not affected by it in Newfoundland because election results come out first there. I think something should be done to assure that election returns are not made available in eastern Canada while we are still voting in western Canada. I care not what political party or government is in power. There is no reason why something should not be evolved whereby there would be a common hour for the opening of ballot boxes. Anyone from the west has had the experience of returns coming in from Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Ontario also, so far as British Columbia particularly is concerned, while the people of the west are still voting. He knows it has a definite effect on those who are uncertain, and particularly on those who are always desirous of being on the winning side. No harm can be done by giving consideration to this matter, for after all what we are trying to do in the setting up of this committee, as I see it and as the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley) has said, is to amend the election law in the light of the experience of recent elections, and it is in that spirit I have advanced these suggestions. There is no question of party politics; it is a matter of assuring that the government of this country and every member of this parliament shall in truth represent the majority, and that no extraneous influences shall be permitted to deter or interfere with the expression of the democratic will in this country.
There are other types of electoral practice than the alternative vote, but that is something that has been promised for years. It was in the 1919 Liberal platform, and again in the 1935 platform. It was in the C.C.F. platform, and we have taken the view at all times that

Dominion Elections Act electoral changes should be made from time to time. So I should like that question submitted to the committee, before which might appear those from other countries and from the two provinces of this dominion which have been mentioned, with experience in this sort of electoral procedure, to the end that within the next two years such changes may be made in our present election laws as the committee or parliament may deem necessary, and above all, so that we in this parliament may be assured that the majority shall determine who shall be elected to this house and so that our large minorities shall not be denied representation, or at least the right to determine who in fact shall represent them, as is largely the case under our present, out-of-date electoral laws.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, not being a member of this proposed committee I should like to speak very briefly to the resolution now before the house. I agree with the hon. member who has just taken his seat that every effort should be made to prevent abuses under our electoral law. I believe it is bad, -both for this parliament and for the individual member, if any shadow of doubt is cast upon the election of a member to this house. Consequently I hope that in addition to the chief electoral officer having full jurisdiction over the service vote next time, ways and means will be found to prevent anything which might even look like the improper marking of ballots and the questioning of an election on that account, either because of the thinness of the paper, as was said to be the case in Regina, or for any other reason.
I remember a debate on this subject in this house some years ago. I have forgotten the date, and I have not the Hansard before me, but at the time the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) was talking to a bill he had introduced and which, if my memory serves me correctly, was given second reading. An hon. gentleman opposite shakes his head, so I may be wrong; but if it were not given second reading at least it was a most interesting bill, which I think it might be well for the committee to study. The hon. member for Quebec South has had long experience in elections in the province of Quebec, and the committee might well take a look at the speech he made introducing that legislation. It was an excellent speech and aroused a great deal of interest. I might add it also caused a great deal of amusement in this house, though the matters with which he dealt were serious indeed.
One of the points with which the hon. member dealt at that time was the expenditure of money by candidates during elections.

I have a copy of the parliamentary return tabled in this house at the request of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and I note that in some constituencies very large sums of money were expended. In one constituency the expenditure amounted to over $33,000. Some years ago that constituency was represented by a very distinguished member of this house, who on one occasion confessed to a parliamentary committee that he had spent much more than $33,000 in order to win that seat. Privately he stated afterward that he believed his opponent bad spent more than twice that amount in order to bring about his defeat.
I think we might look at other democratic countries to see what is being done there in order to prevent undue expenditure of money during elections. In the recent general election in Great Britain there was a limitation on expenditure for the first time, and apparently it worked out well for all parties. The vote was the largest in the history of Great Britain, and from all accounts, whether they come from the government or the opposition, the election was conducted in an eminently fair manner.
The preparation for an election of course is very important. Enumerators should be competent for the job. Speaking for rural constituencies, about which I know something, I believe the remuneration paid the enumerators there, who have to travel long distances, makes the position unattractive so that sometimes it is very difficult to get competent people to do the work. In one rural constituency in Saskatchewan of which I know something-not my own-an enumerator could not be found for one of the polling subdivisions. Finally someone was obtained, and he went to the municipal office and got a list of names from a former municipal voting list. That list was out of date; people had died or moved away, while on the other hand some people who should have been on the list were left off. I think it is the desire of every hon. member of this house, no matter where he sits or to what party he belongs, that every person entitled to vote should have the opportunity of doing so. It is true that the lists are posted later, but we must bear in mind that many people rely upon the enumerator and the deputy returning officer to see that their names are on the list, and do not bother to look it up.
So I think the committee might well consider making the remuneration of enumerators sufficiently attractive that competent persons will assume that responsibility. In the urban centres there are two enumerators, one appointed by the elected member and the

other by the person who came second in the poll. I believe that system might be considered for the rural areas as well. In that way we probably would get a much fairer and much better enumeration than we get at the present time. The cost would be a little more, but it .would not be prohibitive. It would make everyone feel that an attempt was being made to have an enumeration that included everyone and that was perfectly fair.
The member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker) spoke of redistribution. 1 agree with him. Indeed I think some of our people suggested that it should be undertaken by a non-partisan commission when the matter was before the parliamentary committee, but in any event if they did not suggest it they were warmly in support of it. I believe that the setting of the boundaries of a constituency should not be a matter of political manipulation. It should be done by an impartial body composed of the chief electoral officer, who is competent to deal with electoral matters of all descriptions, a judge who would exercise impartiality, and a geographer. I think my hon. friend suggested the surveyor general, but in any event it should be a competent surveyer in order that the topography of the country to be divided might be properly considered. One would not then find, as one does in some constituencies, no means of crossing a river in order to vote, or a range of hills coming in between, and people having to travel fifteen, twenty or thirty miles to a polling station and not the five or six miles that it appears to be on the map. Three competent individuals should be chosen to do this important work.
I think the constituency should be based upon population. This was fairly well done. As a matter of fact, whatever criticism there may be of the drawing of the boundaries of the constituencies in Saskatchewan, this time our constituencies do comprise about 40,000 people, and the number of members roughly represents the population of our province. When you come to the province of Ontario, what do you find? You find constituencies here with less than 20,000 people in them. I think Glengarry has about 15,000, if I remember correctly.


Mr. Chevrier:: It has 18,000, in fact over 18,000.


Major James William Coldwell: It is less than 20,000. In other cases one finds constituencies running as high as 80,000 or more. Even among rural constituencies there is a big difference in the number of voters. I am not urging that the constituencies should all contain the same number of people, because I think some consideration must be given to the area to be 55946-1061
Dominion Elections Act covered. Consequently where you have large, thinly-populated areas, the number of people included in those constituencies would have to be numerically less than in the highly congested areas of the cities or well-settled portions of the country. What I am saying is that when you have a constituency like the one I have named, where the population is not widely scattered in the sense we think of a widely scattered population on the prairies, at least there should be some equalization of the voters in the various constituencies.
I believe, too, that a further opportunity should be given to those people who find it difficult to get to the polls by six o'clock. I know when my friend the then member for Vancouver North was here some years ago, Mr. Grant MacNeil, he used to make a plea for these people, because in some places the men have to come home by ferry boat and cannot get to the polling station in time to cast their vote. The same condition prevails in certain industrial areas where the men on different shifts find it difficult to get away by five or six o'clock. It is quite true that they may ask for and receive a certain number of hours in which to vote, but a good many people, particularly those in key jobs such as operating essential machines, do not care to ask for time because there may be no one else to run that machine during their absence, and it means that production is delayed. I believe the committee might therefore give some consideration to extending the hours for voting to eight o'clock. This does not seem to be an unreasonable hour. I am firmly of the opinion that just as, during the last revision of the act, we extended the right to vote to people living away from their constituency, we should consider now the people who find it difficult to get to the poll by six o'clock. The hours should be extended so that every Canadian citizen would have an opportunity to cast his vote. After all, we want the largest number of people possible to vote.
Then of course, trespassing on the resolution proposed by the member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), I would strongly urge the committee to consider the enfranchisement of young men and women of eighteen years of age. I believe that today the educational standards of our people have been raised to such an extent that many of our eighteen year old people are better qualified, and indeed better informed regarding public affairs, than their forefathers were at that age. Indeed they are better qualified at least educationally than some of the older people who are alive today. We expect these young people to join the army, the navy or the air force in the event of war, and to bear arms for
1654	HOUSE OF
Dominion Elections Act our country in its defence. If we expect them to bear arms in defence of our country,
I think they should have a voice in determining the people who conduct the affairs of the country. I believe therefore that another matter which should be given attention by the committee is the enfranchisement of young men and women of eighteen years of age.
Those are the principal points that I had in mind, to which I would make reference if I were a member of the committee. I hope the committee will study these questions and other matters quite thoroughly, and that out of the inquiry into the act revisions will come which will be in the interests of Canadian democracy; that through those revisions we may find perhaps a better reflection of public opinion in our House of Commons than we have found in the past, and that we shall develop people who have a greater interest in public affairs than we sometimes think is prevalent in our country today.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, in common with the member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) I am not a member of this committee, but the two members who represent this group on that committee are at the moment attending another committee meeting, so I have been asked to say a few words on their behalf. What I wish to say reflects my personal opinions, but I do not think those opinions will stray very far from those generally held by the members who sit in this corner of the house.
One might ask, why is it desirable to have electoral reform? I think the answer could be, so that the people will have the democratic right to say whom they want to represent them, and what results they want in the management of their affairs. This definition perhaps goes a little further than mere electoral reform. But there must be some reason for desiring electoral reform. The fact is that civilization progresses from one decade to another, and naturally we do not carry on in the same fashion as we perhaps traditionally did one hundred years ago or so. What we desire to retain in our democracy is all that is good from tradition, with the addition of new discoveries which we believe will make democracy more effective.
I would strongly suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this committee, when it is set up and pursues its work, should give some serious consideration to amendments which will effect, in our electoral system, the single transferable vote.
I am greatly in favour of that for the particular reason that, under our present voting system, we all know it is possible for a government, with its party, to be elected with a tremendous majority and yet to be elected,


with that majority, by a minority vote of the people. That is a serious matter in our present electoral system. What we really have is a huge party majority that the majority of the people have not said they wanted. That is in reality what happens. That should not be so. By giving the voter a second, third, or fourth choice, whatever the case may be, he has then a right to say that if his first-choice candidate is not elected, he desires a second-choice or a third-choice candidate to be elected. I do not propose that he should be compelled to vote second or third choices. That could be left to him. Nevertheless, he has occasion to exercise that privilege if he so desires. The over-all and net result will be that a government sits in office with the backing of the people of Canada; and I think that is most essential.
There is another thing that 1 am going to suggest, and I have suggested it before in this house. I do so entirely on my own responsibility, as it is my own personal view. I believe that there should be a definite and set time for elections to be held. I do not believe that it should be within the power of the government in office to be able to say when this country should have an election. It simply means that the government in office have the power and the right to go to the country in an election at a time which is politically most expedient for them. I prefer the United States system when it comes to the matter of the duration of a parliament and a set date for an election, every four -years or every five years, whichever we might determine by way of legislation.
I know that our parliamentary set-up is somewhat different from that of the United States. I know the argument will be put forth that a government should have the privilege of resigning at any time, and that it should particularly have the privilege of resigning when it fails to get a confidence vote of the members of parliament. My answer to that argument would be that there is in Canada need for parliamentary reform as well as for electoral reform. Personally, over the few years of my experience in this house, I have not been able to say that the will of the people is always reflected by votes that are taken in this house. It is one thing for a candidate to go out in an election campaign, to say to the people that he stands for this and this and this, to go over the number of points that he stands for, and to say that if they will elect him he will advocate and vote for those things in parliament. It is all very well for him to say that when he is out stumping on the political platform; but when he arrives here he finds that the picture is somewhat

changed. Very often, instead of voting so as to reflect the will of his people, he votes according to the will of his party.


Mr. Thomson:: So do you.


Ernest George Hansell: My hon. friend said so do I. If I do, then that is all the more reason for parliamentary reform. But I do not believe that I do. Whether I would or not if our party were in office might be another thing. I will tell you at that time whether I will or not; but at the present time let me answer my hon. friend by saying this. At the present time each and every man in this group here in this house can vote whatever way he chooses to vo.e and there are no strings tied to him. We in this corner of the house have often voted differently, one from the other.
I say there is now need for parliamentary reform in order that the will of the people may be reflected at all times without imposing upon the government in office the danger of a vote of want of confidence. I do not believe that all votes should necessarily register want of confidence in the government. That is what happens today, but I do not believe it should happen. I believe that in this parliament we should have a free vote of parliament and that the government in office, taking their instructions from parliament, should set about their duty to bring down legislation or to administer the affairs of the country in accordance with the will of the people. I believe that would be a reflection of an effective democracy. But that is not what happens today. We know that. What happens today is that the government brings down legislation. They may say that they have discussed it in their caucuses and that they have a majority in the house. In reply I would say that I do not believe in government by caucuses either. That is my personal view. But they bring down legislation. I think I can say that very often they bring down legislation that is never discussed even in their caucuses. They present it to us and they say: "There you are, boys, that is it."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I do not think the hon. member is discussing the principle of the resolution.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, I must agree with you. I did get off the track, because what I was trying to do was to emphasize the definition which I gave at the commencement of my remarks in respect to the will of the people being at all times reflected, and the government governing themselves accordingly. That is why I brought the thing within the confines of this chamber. 1 believe there should be some Senate reform, but I will not mention that either, Mr. Speaker, because it is perhaps beyond the purview of the work of this suggested committee.
Dominion Elections Act
Perhaps I have said enough to reflect my own views on this matter. I will conclude by saying that as a democracy we must move along in the democratic process toward the reform of our electoral and parliamentary system so that the direct will of the people will be reflected and governments activated thereby at all times.


Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, since I shall not be a member of this committee I desire to make one or two remarks. Like the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker) I was surprised that the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley) did not make some reference to the matter of Annapolis-Kings and the result there under the Dominion Controverted Elections Act. I want to endorse what the member for Lake Centre said about that and to a quote a little further from the report, which is to be found on page 83 of Votes and Proceedings. Section 6 reads:
The evidence indicates a disorganized polling booth where a considerable number of persons were walking around. The officer seems to have considered that he had no duty in regard to anything except signing the certificates.
According to reports I have heard this section could apply to many training centres across Canada. Section 7 reads:
Under order of headquarters, the commissioned officer made no inquiry of voters. He interpreted his instructions to mean that if a declaration was presented to him and signed, he would certify it and give a ballot to the person presenting it, even if he knew that that person was not entitled to vote.
That is a pretty glaring statement, Mr. Speaker. I can tell you that many personnel in large training centres in western Canada were amazed at the type of campaign carried on, and at matters pertaining to taking the vote in these centres. I hope that this matter will be gone into by this committee, and that the election act will be so amended that we will be sure that there will not be a repetition of this sort of thing in the future, because it has been very bad business.
The point I do want to make is this. It may be a bit of a fetish with me. It has been referred to by other speakers today. Ever since coming to this parliament I have been concerned about the matter of the transferable vote. It has been pretty well covered today. I want to add that in this present House of Commons we have at least 121 members who have been elected by a minority of the votes cast in their respective constituencies. I know it was surprising to many people to find that, according to the chief electoral officer's figures, the majority of those citizens in Canada who cast their votes on June 27 last year did not vote for this government.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.

Dominion Elections Act


James Arthur Ross: My hon. friend can laugh and chuckle as he likes, but it does not affect me one iota. If he is able enough to rise in his place and contradict that statement then he may laugh to his heart's desire, but I am making the statement that, according to the figures released by the chief electoral officer, the majority of the electors casting their votes on June 27 did not vote for this government. That does not reflect anything on the government. It is due to our election act. I am neither admitting nor disputing the fact that they have probably 75 members in this House of Commons who were elected with a minority vote cast on that day. I am not predicting what might happen at another election. The same thing could happen, or it might be reversed. The point I want to make is this. In a democracy I think that before a person is declared elected he should, on the transfer of votes, have received a majority of the votes cast in the riding. I have put the figures on record in the speech from the throne debate. They may be found at pages 110 and 111 of Hansard. I do not want to repeat them at this time. The figures with respect to the last general election in this country can be checked.
As I say, not being a member of the committee I would sincerely hope that they will give serious consideration to the matter of the transferable vote and of providing for it under the Dominion Elections Act, 1938. I can say that I know something of the manner in which it has worked in Manitoba. I cannot tell you how many years it has been in force there, but it has been in force in quite a number of general provincial elections in that province, and I believe also in Alberta.
I simply repeat, Mr. Speaker, I am sincere in asking that the committee give the most serious consideration to amending the Dominion Elections Act and making provision for the transferable vote at any future elections.


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: Not being a member of this committee, I should like to endorse the remarks made by the hon. member for Lake Centre. I have a few suggestions to offer, and perhaps you will call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. H. W. Winkler (Lisgar) moved: that the following bills be read the second time:
Bill No. 18, for the relief of Doris Joan Guest Rigg.-Mr. Winkler.

Bill No. 19, for the relief of Cora Elizabeth Jamieson Southam.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 20, for the relief of Audrey Brenda Holmes Burnett.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 21, for the relief of Barbara Edna Brownrigg Johnson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 22, for the relief of Aili Katriina Salokannel Martel.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 23, for the relief of Velma Elizabeth Buchanan Lowson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 24, for the relief of Gladys Harriet Hassall Thom.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 25, for the relief of Elisabeth Mavis Cann Jousse.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 26, for the relief of Eric Lacate.- Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 27, for the relief of Dorothy Margaret May Harris McCormick.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 28, for the relief of Sigrid Denston Day.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 29, for the relief of Beatrice Campbell McClay.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 30, for the relief of Catherine C. Goodrow Rogers.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 31, for the relief of Miriam Roberta Weir Caryer.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 32, for the relief of Marjorie Frances Murphy Cozzolino.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 33, for the relief of Mary Thomson Cadieux.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 34, for the relief of Veronica Pearl Faulkner MacKenzie.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 35, for the relief of Elizabeth Hampshier Atyon Reilley.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 36, for the relief of Sybil Elliott Karr Boulanger.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 37, for the relief of Mary Kennedy Dunn Anderson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 38, for the relief of Albert Ernest Curtis.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 39, for the relief of Annie Swales Barber.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 40, for the relief of Rebecca Catherine Pitts Duquette.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 41, for the relief of Edith Mary Stone Ryan.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 42, for the relief of Pearl Greenspan Abramovitz.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 43, for the relief of Harry Rudner. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 44, for the relief of Dorothea Joan Lawrence Gamble.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 45, for the relief of Walter St. Andre Bawn.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 46, for the relief of Alison Hamilton Brown Weldon.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 47, for the relief of Hazel May Wilkie MacLeod.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 48, for the relief of William Gordon Cascadden.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 49, for the relief of Romeo Lefebvre. -Mr. Winkler.

Bill No. 50, for the relief of Kathleen Veronica Thompson Davidson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 51, for the relief of Joseph Arthur Winsorlow Brisebois.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 52, for the relief of Margaret May Tuck Reicker.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 53, for the relief of Mabel Kearley Budgell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 57, for the relief of Zina Sarah Fletcher Tannenbaum.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 58, for the relief of Fred Marcus.- Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 59, for the relief of Belva Rubin Bercusson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 60, for the relief of Reginald E. Martin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 61, for the relief of Dora Moore Holland Towers.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 62, for the relief of Betty Benditsky Kursner Kokernick.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 63, for the relief of Elizabeth Goodman Goldberg.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 64, for the relief of Helene Eugenie Hortense Holmes Said.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 65, for the relief of Amanda Doris Drachler Segalowitz, otherwise known as Amanda Doris Drachler Selton.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 66, for the relief of Florence Druck-man Oliver.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 67, for the relief of Albert Gedeon Martin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 68, for the relief of Brandel Avru-tick Cutler.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 69, for the relief of Freda Geraldine Rodgers.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 70, for the relief of Hattie May Dawson Wood-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 71, for the relief of Marie Yvonne Bouchard O'Rourke.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 72, for the relief of Ethel Margaret Murphy Watson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 73, for the relief of Clifford Willis Collins.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 74, for the relief of Alfred Beatty Harris.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 75, for the relief of Claire Jeanne D'Arc Sagala De Montignac.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 76, for the relief of Nora Maria De Montignac Des Jardins.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 77, for the relief of Rita Annie Wylie Morrow.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 78, for the relief of Olga Veleky Stepanovitch.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 79, for the relief of Beatrice Norma Sabbath Finestone.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 80, for the relief of Adele Kuznetz Paquette.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 91, for the relief of Jessie Ferguson Deans McKenzie.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 92, for the relief of Daisy Muriel Smallcombe Devaney.-Mr. Winkler.
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. 93, for the relief of Stella Burns Herdman Elder.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 94, for the relief of Ethel May Alice Turnbull Colligan.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 95, for the relief of Effie Irene Collier Newman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 96, for the relief of Phyllis Anne England McNab.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 97, for the relief of Martha Jean Brooks Markell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 98, for the relief of Kathleen Zawit-koska Symianick.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 99, for the relief of Jeannine Mar-tineau Masse.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 100, for the relief of Betty Borman Archambault.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 101, for the relief of Edwin Dawson. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 102, for the relief of Mavis Barker Billingham.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 103, for the relief of Roland Gour. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 104, for the relief of Margaret Elizabeth Taylor Clarke.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 105, for the relief of Sylvia Singer Mepham.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 106, for the relief of Mabel Kathleen Baxter Simons.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 107, for the relief of Vittoria Minotti Mastracchio.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 108, for the relief of Dent Harrison. 

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 109, for the relief of Margaret Mahajahla Aitken Schoch.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 110, for the relief of Esther Spector Gelfand.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. Ill, for the relief of Sophie Roth Pliss.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 112, for the relief of Gertrude Howard McWilliams Rubin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 113, for the relief of Remenia Bertha Duguay Briggs.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 114, for the relief of Blanche Naomi Greenlees.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 115, for the relief of Leslie William McNally.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 116, for the relief of Jacqueline Marie Scully Sirois.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 117, for the relief of Phyllis Christina McLeod Daly.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 118, for the relief of Winnie Florence Clitheroe DuVal.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 119, for the relief of Muriel Elizabeth McCurry Welham.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 120, for the relief of Betty Margaret Slinn Metivier.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 121, for the relief of Fanny Abram-owitch Mergler.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 122, for the relief of John Wood.- Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 123, for the relief of Olivia Mary Tipping Morris.-Mr. Winkler.

Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. 124, for the relief of Mable Veronica Askin Williamson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 125, for the relief of Christine Rachel MacLeod Nicholson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 126, for the relief of Anne Halperin Perelmutter.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 127, for the relief of Phyllis Rochlin Rabinovitch.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 128, for the relief of Mary Kay-bridge Goulbourn.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 129, for the relief of Muriel Alice Mary Westgate.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 130, for the relief of John Elliot Cumming.-Mr. Winkler.
(Translation):


Mr. Paul E. Gagnon (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, in the January 21, 1950, issue of the Saturday Evening Post, Mr. David G. Wittels who had made a survey of the situation in the United States, describes divorce as "our biggest national scandal" and later told in a series of articles "the sordid story of America's broken homes".
Considering the present sad trends, the same thing will soon apply to Canada.
The philosophy of those who would make divorce easier no doubt finds justification in their minds because of their particular beliefs. May I tell them that I fail to grasp their point of view and that their arguments, based on false principles, can in no way change the attitude I have at all times defended in this house regarding this matter of national importance.
The principle of the indissolubility of marriage must be upheld with the utmost vigour and any attempt at compromise must be rejected. Adultery having been recognized as grounds for divorce, it is logical that it should be resorted to by those seeking divorce. That is the unfortunate situation with which we are faced in this country today.
In requesting the house to reject these bills, I am invoking, not only religious, but also social grounds.
I appeal to all those who love their country, who wish it to be great and strong, whatever their political or sectarian affiliations might be.
In the words of Paul Gide, a sincere Protestant: "Divorce is only a form of polygamy by instalments." Man does not mate, he marries, and when he marries, it is unto death.
tMr. Winkler.]
Marriage is not an ordinary contract, strictly natural or civil in character. The church intervenes to give it a much more august character. Husband and wife are united in the name of the Creator of mankind and their union is consecrated forevermore.
All moralists agree on the principle that the idea of perpetuity linked to duty makes the latter easier to accomplish. When you let a man realize that he may cast off his obligations, you weaken his sense of duty.
Monsignor Freppel stated in the French chamber of deputies on June 13, 1882:
Such is, gentlemen, the undeniable danger of divorce. With the possibility of breaking the bonds of matrimony, you introduce in the home a germ of dissolution, and what would be sufficient to develop this germ of dissolution? Any of the thousand and one annoyances which always arise when two people live together would be enough. When marriage is considered indissoluble, such annoyances may disappear sooner or later at the thought of a perpetual bond; hurt pride bows to reason and the idea of sacrifice finally triumphs over selfishness.
On the contrary, with the prospect of a complete and final breaking off everything is magnified, everything gets worse; the least disagreement takes on considerable importance. And the fatal word of divorce which civil law itself drops into the ear of this worker or that farmer, who would never have thought of it without this trap set against his frailty by the legislator himself, that word received apprehensively at first but which gradually sinks in, that word with which one gets familiar becomes the signal for a permanent dissolution of family life!
We must revert to the fundamental laws of marriage.
As Monsignor Julien put it during a lecture delivered at the Semaines sociales of France, in Grenoble, in 1923:
The question is whether the laws of the spirit will prevail over the laws of the flesh in the struggle for duty.
The question is whether the soul will remain faithful to duty to the extent of accepting its responsibilities, which are sometimes very heavy, and of running risks, which are at times very distressing. No prerogative, either legal or political, no reward, either in the form of money or of honours, will ever replace that which can only assure the fecundity of our families, namely, the respect for God-established order and the joy that springs from self-denial. It is the family spirit, if we may say so, that overcomes difficulties, the fears of the present and the uncertainties of the future, and that enables one to live up to the divine laws of life according to the dictates of one's conscience.
The family spirit, however, is properly the religious spirit. Religion is the best safeguard for this superior instinct which draws the sap of life to all the limbs of the human tree.
One may not sever with impunity the roots by which human institutions extend into the realm of divinity.

Mr. P. Cuche, professor at the Faculty of Law of Grenoble, states, with Monsignor Julien:
It is an acknowledged fact today that the mandatory effect of contracts does not lie in the will of the contracting parties. The fact that I wanted something yesterday does not imply that I still want it today. Even if I change my mind, I am still bound by my undertaking of yesterday. My agreement of yesterday thus prevails over my wish today, so that even though I change my mind I am still bound by this agreement.
Public interest requires that it be so. It is essential that the undertakings agreed to in marriage, a sacred contract, be permanent.
Man is not born to indulge in pleasure; he is born to do his duty, to live, to toil by the sweat of his brow, to fight weather and the elements in order to earn his living, to practise religion and charity, and so on.
Divorce breeds free love. We must therefore choose between indissoluble marriage and free love.
If we allow exceptions, they will soon become the rule.
Our legislation should respect and safeguard the family, the basis of society.
As long as by civil legislation the stability of our homes is left to the good will or whims, the egotism or passion of either of the parties concerned, the family as an institution will remain precarious because the two main objects of marriage, procreation and education of children and mutual assistance of the spouses, will be jeopardized.
The unity of the family and the indissolubility of marriage are characteristic of progressive civilizations; divorce means decline and retrogression.
It is the responsibility of the civil authority to legislate on the civil and temporal effects of marriage, but it has not the power to bind and even less to untie the bonds of matrimony.
The function of the state is to look after the general welfare of the community and the legislators have the duty to vigorously oppose every application for divorce. As I said at the outset, we are not qualified to hear those cases; if we persist in doing so, we usurp a right which belongs only to God.
(Text):
Motion agreed to and bills read the second time.


Mr. Speaker:: These bills are referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.
Private Bills



LIMITHOLDERS' MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Mr. Jean Lesage (Monlmagny-L'Islel) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 55, respecting the Limitholders' Mutual Insurance Company.


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

Mr. Ralph Maybank (Winnipeg South Centre) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 85, to incorporate Ukrainian National Federation of Canada.


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


Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 2, to amend the Criminal Code (capital punishment).
He said: The purpose of this bill is to abolish capital punishment in Canada and to substitute therefor life imprisonment. May I state initially that I speak as a private member and not necessarily on behalf of my party. I hope that this contentious matter may remain out of the realm of party politics.
Some hon. members may question the wisdom or desirability of such a bill at the present time. I suppose such an attitude is natural, because after two world wars in which millions of people were slain, where whole populations were wiped out, and in which we witnessed such incidents as Hiroshima and Nagasaki, some may feel that it is not very important whether a few worthless human beings, who have themselves taken human life, live or die. I feel, however, that this Canadian law is so revolting that parliament should examine it before another session goes by. At least twice before similar legislation has been before parliament. In 1914 and again in 1917 Mr. Robert Bickerdike, the member for Montreal-St. Lawrence, introduced such a bill. Unfortunately he did not get very far with it.
Then in 1937 a Mr. Blair introduced a bill which would have substituted for hanging a more humane method of execution. That proposal also was not accepted. Thus in 1950 we still have hanging on the statute books of Canada. Surely the time has come for reform. Few members can study this issue without realizing that there are very grave
1660	HOUSE OF
Criviinal Code Amendvient objections to the death penalty. I do not think I am sentimental about this subject. Certainly I am going to try to base my arguments on other than sentimental reasons. I believe that any criminal should be punished and punished adequately, but I also believe that there are sound and logical reasons why Canada should do away with the death penalty.
I have seven main reasons for objecting to hanging. My first reason is based upon purely moral and Christian grounds. Most Canadians profess to believe in the Christian faith. That faith is based at least partly upon the ten commandments. Most hon. members will recall the words of the sixth commandment, and those words are specific, concise and crystal clear. They are, "Thou shalt not kill". There are no ifs, there are no buts, there are no qualifications. I submit that if that commandment means anything at all, it means exactly what it says: "Thou shalt not kill."
But in Canada we have moved an amendment to that commandment and we have said in effect "the state may kill, but the individual must not take a life".


James Sinclair: An eye for an eye.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I say that if it is wrong for an individual to kill, it is equally wrong for the state to take a human life. I do not profess to be a biblical authority like my hon. friend the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sinclair). I am not going to quote citations from the Bible tonight to back up my argument, but I say that hanging violates every Christian principle. If we expect the individual to refrain from murder, the state must set an example. Perhaps I do not see this matter in the proper light, but as I do see it, no Christian can advocate capital punishment and be true to his faith, and no community which professes to be Christian can deliberately murder even the most erring of its members.
My second objection to hanging is the terrible brutality of the actual execution. In 1937 some shocking evidence was placed before a select committee of this House of Commons. Some hon. members may not have read the evidence. Many experts claim that hanging is almost instantaneous, that death comes instantly. According to the evidence presented to that select committee that is not correct. At page 57 of the evidence Mr. S. Wills, acting deputy sheriff of the city of Toronto, testified that in eleven hangings from 1917 to 1937 which he had attended the average time of death after the trap was


sprung was 14-7 minutes. At page 55 he was asked by Mr. Howden about a specific case, and I quote:
Q. Was death fairly rapid in that instance?
A. There has not been one rapid one that I have seen yet.
According to the Toronto deputy sheriff mishaps are quite common at executions. At page 53 he stated:
I have always had at the back of my mind1 the possibility of decapitation every time there is a hanging. There is always the fear of that.
Such a fear apparently is well justified because there are numerous instances of mishaps having taken place in Canadian executions. One of them was mentioned in this evidence, the caset of a woman in Montreal who had her head literally pulled off in the execution. The following is in the evidence:
Q. Did the woman's friends see her after her head was pulled off?
A. That I could not say.
Other accidents have taken place in Canadian executions. On page 54 of the evidence Mr. Hamilton questioned the Toronto deputy sheriff as follows:
Q. Have there been any bunglings by the executioner in the eleven cases you have mentioned?
A. Well, I have one case in mind where a man was allowed to have too long a drop, and on going down to the lower cell, I found that the man was practically on his knees when he got down at the end of the rope . . . the hangman had gotten down before me, and I found him hanging onto the man so as to ensure his speedy death.
Q. You mean to say that he was pushing down on the man?
A. Yes, sir, hanging on to the man with his weight to bring him on to the rope until he was dead.
I suggest that hon. members should read this evidence, because there are numerous cases just as shocking as those I have mentioned. I say hanging is inhuman. It is unChristian. It is a foul practice which has no place in a civilized country like Canada.
In the third place I am opposed to capital punishment because of its relentless finality. Once the punishment has been inflicted there is no possible rectification in case of error. It is human to err; judges and juries can and do make mistakes. No matter how careful juries may be, no matter how damning the evidence may appear, it is possible to hang an innocent man; and history recounts numerous instances where that has been done. Before the British house a few years ago Sir Fitzroy Kelly declared that from the turn of the century to 1930 he had found seventeen cases in Britain of accused men having been sentenced to death and subsequently found to be innocent. I say that such a danger is always present; and until human judgment is

infallible I doubt if we have the right to inflict irrevocable doom upon any of our fellow citizens.
Capital punishment brutalizes and degrades every person associated with it, the guards who lead the victim to the gallows, the executioner who must spring the trap door. I have heard some interesting stories about some of these executioners, and I am sure some of them must be true. Some executioners commit suicide because of their job. I know that one executioner in one of our large cities not so long ago was a consistent drunkard. At one time an execution was to take place in that city. The deputy sheriff is responsible; and as the date of the execution approached the authorities could not find the hangman. The sheriff was ready to resign rather than be responsible for springing the trap door. Finally they found the hangman; but not before the prison official had been thoroughly frightened. I say capital punishment is hard upon the minister or priest who has to administer the last rites of the church, upon the doctor who has to be present, upon the reporters who have to write about it. The family of the man hanged have a terrible stigma cast upon them. One of the men hanged in Edmonton last month had five children; one of the men hanged in Vancouver had four. Even the people who read about hangings are affected by the inevitable horror; and I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that every execution is followed by a general lowering of the moral standards of a community. Hanging does not in any way enhance the majesty of Canadian law. I do not see how we can inculcate a respect for human life by ourselves showing contempt for human life.
My fifth reason for opposing the death penalty, and I think it is an important reason, is the fact that it is so repugnant to many decent citizens that the jurymen in capital cases have been known to bring in verdicts contrary to the evidence, in favour of a prisoner. Acquittals sometimes can be blamed only upon the humanitarian feelings of the jurymen and their reluctance to send a man to certain death. Many juries are reluctant to find a woman guilty of murder. Such verdicts, even if they occur but rarely, could be dangerous to a community, because of the fact that as a result dangerous criminals may be set free.
In the sixth place I oppose capital punishment because quite frequently Canadians are hanged who do not directly commit murder. Under Canadian law accessories to a murder are just as guilty as the man who committed the fatal act. In certain circumstances, for instance if a murder is committed during a
Criminal Code Amendment robbery, all those who participated in the robbery may be executed; and that has frequently happened in Canadian legal history. Some hon. members may remember the Bank of Hochelaga case in Montreal some years ago. If my memory serves me correctly in that case five men held up a bank and during the hold-up one of the robbers killed a bank employee. All five were subsequently executed for murder.


Mr. Cruickshank:: And rightly so.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Some hon. members may say rightly so. Theoretically the principals are equally guilty in the eyes of the law, but morally 1 do not think they are equally guilty, because only one man committed the actual murder and the others did not kill.


Jean Lesage: How many were ready to do it in the case you cited?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: My hon. friend may be facetious if he wishes, but in my opinion six lives for one, or four for one, or two for one is not Canadian justice, it is vengeance, stark and brutal.


Jean Lesage: What about one life for twenty-three?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: My hon. friend has a point; that was a bad case. Yet some Canadians who have been killed in these mass executions have been young. Some have been veterans. We must remember that for five long years we taught a great many of our young men how to kill. We showed them the most gruesome, the most fiendish, the most scientific methods of murder. Can we be surprised if some do not forget those teachings overnight? I repeat that this law is one of which we may not be too proud.
Finally, I oppose the death penalty because as a punishment it is purely and simply revenge. No attempt is made to reform the criminal, nor is any attempt made to remove the conditions which led that man to become a murderer. I think-and I say this respectfully-that if we Canadians spent more time in eliminating those conditions which cause murders, and less time in brutal punishment after murders are committed, we might have a lower murder rate.
I have said that there are grave objections to the death penalty. Are there, then, logical reasons for Canada to continue it? What are the arguments for its retention? There are several arguments, some minor and one at least major. The first minor argument in favour of capital punishment goes something like this. Hanging removes the possibility of. a repetition of the crime of murder by the same offender. Of course

Criminal Code Amendment it does. But I also suggest that life imprisonment would do the same thing, and without compounding the crime of murder.
Some will say that life imprisonment is a burdensome expense upon the state, that there is no reason why the taxpayers should maintain a prisoner. That is not a very strong reason. In the first place, of course, most prisoners, after having been imprisoned for some time, should have acquired a trade by which to maintain themselves. If that is not the case in Canada then perhaps our penitentiaries should be examined to find out why that is not so. Moreover, I do not think most Canadians would be so selfish as to want to take the life of a man, simply to save the taxpayers a few cents a day on a per capita basis.
Such reasons are not good enough. In my opinion the sole justification for the retention of the death penalty in Canada, if there is any justification at all, is the argument that hanging discourages an a deters potential murderers. Many who believe in hanging frankly confess that it is a horrible and revolting practice, but they say it is necessary in order to protect society. Capital punishment, they argue, is a necessary deterrent without which there would be more murders. Well, if such a claim were justified I would admit that it would be a pretty strong argument; but history gives little support to the theory that hanging is a deterrent to crime.
The experience of the English people is noteworthy, and I should like to draw that experience to the attention of the house. It may surprise some hon. members to learn that until a century or so ago English common law was perhaps as harsh as any law in the civilized world, and capital punishment was carried out in the British isles on a colossal scale.
In 1780 there were 240 capital crimes in Great Britain. In those days you could be hanged for picking pockets, for fishing on the estate of a lord or for hunting on his grounds. There were thousands of trivial crimes punishable by hanging. During the reign of Henry VIII 72,000 Englishmen were hanged, and most of them for trivial offences. The gruesome corpses were left hanging along country roads to serve as grim warnings to potential evildoers.
Despite this terrible severity, crime in England steadily increased. Hanging did not seem to deter it. All of these barbarous punishments in the past were justified by the excuse that hanging was necessary in order to deter further crime, the same excuse which is given today for retaining hanging for murder. Gradually down through the years
[Mr. Thatcher.l
men became a little kindlier, and a little more imaginative. The crimes punishable by death were gradually reduced in number. But they were not reduced without a great deal of opposition in the House of Lords and the House of Commons.
In 1810, for instance, Sir Samuel Romilly moved a bill in the English House of Commons to abolish capital punishment for theft to the value of five shillings and upwards. At that time the solicitor general stated:
All the judges of the land are convinced that the proposed reform is fraught with consequences the most injurious . . .
That was a statement by the solicitor general, a cabinet minister. Lord Ellen-borough, the famous chief justice, stated:
Repeal this law, and no man can trust himself for an hour out of doors . . . lest his property will be swept off by the hardened robber.
In those days many wise and learned men were aghast at the proposed reform. They said that no one's property would be safe if hanging were abolished for that trivial crime. Today we know their fears were groundless, and the prophecies concerning the increase of crime were completely falsified by subsequent history.
Let us not forget, Mr. Speaker, that only a few centuries ago there was hardly a responsible person in Europe who did not think that the safety of the state depended upon its right to hang others who practised their religion in the wrong way. Not many centuries ago if you happened to live in France or Spain, you might have been hanged for being a Protestant. If you happened to live in England or Holland, you might have been hanged for being a Catholic. Despite that fact we know that religion flourished in most of the countries in Enurope.
I stated a moment ago that England has used capital punishment more extensively than any other country in the world. It is interesting to note what the English have done about capital punishment during the last fifteen years. Three times the House of Commons has passed a bill abolishing the death penalty, and three times the House of Lords, a non-elected body, has vetoed the bill.
If we abolish hanging in Canada, it is fair to ask whether it would be dangerous to our citizens generally. I say it would not be dangerous if we can go by the experience of other nations. In the world today there are more than thirty nations and states who have had experience with the abolition of capital punishment. In Europe such nations as Holland, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Switzerland and others have dispensed with the death penalty. In North and

South America it has been abolished by such countries as the Argentine, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Uruguay.
Back in 1930 the British House of Commons set up a select committee to inquire into the question of capital punishment. This committee wrote to the foreign countries who had abolished capital punishment requesting them to send in evidence. The committee asked: "Tell us what your experience was before you abolished the death penalty, and what your experience was afterwards; did the murder rate go up?" They also invited those countries to send qualified experts, whose passage to England would be paid, to testify before the committee. The evidence which was given to that British committee in 1930 was so enlightening that I should like to put some of it on Hansard for the benefit of members, so that they might ponder it.
In Belgium there have been no executions since 1863. The Belgian attitude to the death penalty was summed up in a memorandum sent to the committee by the minister of justice. I quote from that memorandum:
Since the death penalty was definitely abandoned the crime ratio has remained practically stationary . . .
In the face of results so conclusive .... it seems inconceivable that a minister of justice should ever again think it possible to re-establish a penalty the uselessness of which has been amply demonstrated.
In Denmark the last execution took place in 1892. The Danish minister of justice stated to the committee:
It may be considered proved that the abolition of this punishment has not had any adverse influence on the number of capital crimes.
Mr. Erik Kampmann, representing the Danish government, told the select committee:
The number of murders decreased since the virtual abolition of the death penalty.
In Holland capital punishment was abolished by law in 1870. Today its homicide rate is the lowest on the continent of Europe.
Representing his government, Sir Simon Van Der Aa was a witness before this committee on capital punishment. He stated that following abolition-
-criminal statistics continued to show no tendency of increase of crimes for which, in lieu of the death penalty, lifelong imprisonment may be imposed.
In Norway there have been no executions since 1875-that is, there had not been until the war. According to official statistics, the annual murder rate per 100,000 has been as follows: 1859-1868, -17; 1869-1870, -14; 18791888, -12; 1889-1898, -12; 1899-1904, 08; 19051924, -05. It has dropped consistently. In a memorandum to the select committee, the Norwegian government stated:
The experience gained has strengthened the view that abolition of capital punishment has not caused any increase in the number of murders.
Criminal Code Amendment
Sweden abolished the death penalty in 1921, although the last execution was in 1910. In a report to the committee, the chief of Swedish penitentiaries said:
The final abolition of the penalty far from leading to an increase in offences of this kind was actually followed by a noticeable decrease in crimes legally punished by death.
Mr. Speaker, one could go on to show that every country which gave evidence before the British committee testified that the murder rate, if not remaining stationary, had actually gone down. In no single instance is there evidence of the murder rate having increased after the abolition of the death penalty.
Several states in the union to the south of us have also abolished the death penalty. The murder rate is high in many of the states, but it is a matter of statistics that the murder rate in those states which have abolished capital punishment is lower than in those in which there is some form of execution. There may be a reason for that; I do not know. But I say that the experience of the foreign countries, and the experience of some of the American states, proves that the murder rate does not necessarily go up when the death penalty is removed.
There is one final reason, Mr. Speaker, why I do not believe execution is a deterrent to crime. Most murders take place in moments of great passion. They are caused by rage, fear, jealousy, drink, insanity or something of that nature. At the moment the murder is committed, the murderer is usually so blinded by his passion of the moment and his unreasoning fury that no thought of future punishment ever enters his mind until later. I say that over these influences no deterrent can have very great effect. No matter how hon. members wish to approach this problem, I suggest it is almost impossible to prove that the death penalty is a deterrent to murder. I challenge any member of parliament to name one person who can be proven to have been deterred from murder because of his fear of the consequences to himself. This being the case, it seems to me that the only possible justification for keeping the death penalty is based upon fallacious reasoning.
Is there a satisfactory alternative to the death penalty? I think there is. I believe that life imprisonment would be a satisfactory alternative. I believe such a punishment should be exactly what its name implies, imprisonment for life. It would punish effectively. It is a deterrent; it removes the criminal from society, and allows for the reformation of the individual. In addition to that, it recognizes the sanctity of human life. I say again, Mr. Speaker, that real security for human life is to be found in reverence

Criminal Code Amendment for it. If the law regarded it as inviolable, then people would also begin to regard it in that light. Perhaps I am biased on this subject, but I cannot believe that there is one single admissible argument in favour of the retention of the death penalty. I say that a humanitarian age places the burden of proof upon those who would retain the death penalty, not on those who would abolish it. As a society, we have always believed that life should be protected and preserved; and I suggest that we put that practice into our penal code.
Not so long ago a hundred crimes were punishable by death, then fifty, then twenty and finally one. I suggest tonight that we make the record clean. I suggest that we in this parliament prove that we are civilized enough, and morally developed enough to let this vileness disappear from our Criminal Code for all time. Surely the world is tragic enough. These ghastly human sacrifices every so often in the Dominion of Canada are no credit to our nation. I feel for the Solicitor General who, I understand, is the man who from time to time must decide whether an appeal can be granted or whether it cannot. It is a task that I would not want, and I do not envy him his responsibility. Perhaps. this bill will not pass this session, perhaps it will not pass at the next; but, Mr. Speaker, sooner or later it will pass because this is a bill which modern civilization will demand. If this bill does not pass this session, I shall re-introduce it next session and if necessary I shall re-introduce it at the one thereafter. I commend this bill to the serious consideration of all hon. members. If they study it, I think they will find some merit in it.


Mr. A. C. Sfewart (Yorkton):: The proposed bill, Mr. Speaker, seeks to amend section 263 of the Criminal Code, punishment for the crime of murder by providing, instead of the sentence of death, imprisonment for life; and under section 299, for the crime of rape, by making the same provision. It does not seek to remove the death penalty under section 74 for treason, under which section there are eleven subheadings as to what constitutes treason. It does not remove the death penalty under section 137 relating to piracy.
Under section 250, homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another, directly or indirectly, by any means whatsoever; and it may be either culpable or not culpable as defined in section 252 of the Canadian Criminal Code; and other definitions are contained in sections 253 to 257 inclusive. The proposed amendment also seeks to remove the death penalty for rape. I do not think this house will be much concerned with that, as the statistics I have procured from the department show that from 1928 to 1948


inclusive there were 463 convictions for rape in Canada, and nobody was hanged as a result of those convictions.
Under section 261 of the Criminal Code culpable homicide may be reduced to manslaughter if death comes in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation. The previous speaker mentioned that a great many of the crimes resulting in murder were the result of the heat of passion. Such is not the case. If they were, Mr. Speaker, as you are well aware, the sentence can be commuted and it invariably has been commuted in Canada. As a matter of fact, the figures show that the crime of murder in Canada has decreased in the last ten years as compared with the preceding ten years, and that the major crimes of murder in Canada are associated with robbery with violence where the crime was absolutely thought out and prepared ahead of time; they were not done in the heat of passion. The last case that we had on the records in our courts down in Quebec was a case of premeditated murder where the innocent passengers of a plane were all sent to their death by a man who thought the thing out carefully and procured the bomb.
This matter has been dealt with in this house on many occasions. It was brought before the house by a former member. My hon. friend who has just spoken says he is going to bring the matter before the house next session, the session after that and the session after that. I presume he will be through the session after that, so we shall have it brought before the house three times. But there was a member of this house who brought the matter up many times prior to the year 1921. He brought it up session after session. In 1919 Mr. Mowat, the then member for Parkdale, moved to amend the section of the code by providing for electrocution instead of hanging. That is covered in Hansard at page 148, volume I, of the 1919 session. At page 488 of the same volume of Hansard the then member for Renfrew South, Mr. Pedlow, moved an amendment as follows:
The death penalty is abolished and all crimes heretofore punishable by death shall be punishable by an incarceration not to exceed the remainder of the life of the accused.
In that debate it is interesting to note that Mr. A. Thompson, the then member for Yukon Territory, adjoining the United States territory of Alaska, said:
In his country, perhaps, but it does not in the Yukon Territory. We have hanged every man that ever committed a murder: we hanged him quick and it has had a very deterrent effect upon other would-be murderers ... in Alaska life is held cheap by the criminal class as compared with the way it is regarded by the same class in the Yukon Territory.

That is the way the two territories, one governed by the United States and one governed by ourselves, operated the death penalty on a different basis. The matter never came to a vote in that session. In 1923 Mr. William Irvine, the then member for Calgary East, formerly Social Credit and later C.C.F., moved a bill to amend the Criminal Code by repealing all provisions thereof demanding capital punishment and the substitution of life imprisonment for the death sentence. He quoted from the book by the warden of Sing Sing, Warden Lawes, at page 1270, that out of 85 men who committed homicide in American states where capital punishment was in effect only one was actually executed, and in the cases where the future consequences entered into the calculations of the convict when he committed the crime, he resolved himself as almost certain to be one of the 84 who would escape death. Apparently it has not been a deterrent in those states where it has been abolished.
I contend that the punishment is inflicted as an end to maintain public peace, good order and morality, and out of respect to the laws and regulations which are the cornerstone of our social relations. We are the lawmakers here in this house and have a responsibility to the public, regardless of our personal abhorrence of hanging. None of us like the matter of hanging. The intervention of the lawmaker-and we are that-is not only legitimate but also absolutely necessary, and he has the right also to punish. He punishes to prevent the repetition of misdemeanors like those which have been committed, such as murder; and the lawmaker's acts are accordingly beneficial to the country at large, and that is our special social mission. Murder cannot be recognized with leniency and maudlin sentiment if every right-thinking man and woman wishes that the temple of society shall' remain standing and desires that civic and constitutional liberties now enjoyed shall continue.
Up until 1924, when that debate took place, Mr. De Quiros in his book "Modern Theories of Criminality" referred to a table giving the ratio of homicides of all degrees, for every million inhabitants. My hon. friend who has spoken mentioned Belgium and some of the other countries. You will find that in Mexico, for instance, there were one thousand murders per million of population, and there is no hanging there. In Chile the number of murders was 340 per million of population; in the Argentine, 230 per million; in the United States of America, 120 per million, and so on; while in Canada the number is only 2-6 per million of population.
Criminal Code Amendment
It will be noted that Canada was the lowest despite the fact that about that time about one-half of our ratio of homicides were committed by people of foreign countries who had come to Canada.
We have the lowest figure of homicides in the world. It is to be noted that life imprisonment does not mean always what its words imply. The crown always has the right to revise a sentence and has done so, reducing it on some occasions to 10 years and in one case as low as 2 years. I would point out too the safeguards that a man accused of murder has, namely: one, the right to obtain counsel, and if he has not the money to do so the crown will appoint and pay counsel for him; two, counsel has the right to challenge 24 jurymen peremptorily, and 12 jurymen being selected, 36 people can be chosen from by counsel for the accused. If he calls no evidence he has the right to address the jury after the crown counsel. Even after a finding of guilty and a sentence of death, he has the right to apply to the governor in council for remission of the sentence of hanging to that of imprisonment. The whole evidence is reviewed by the Minister of Justice and the assistants in his department, who check not only the evidence given in the court below but all exhibits and any recommendations made by the jury or the trial judge. The accused in addition in the trial always has the benefit of the judge's charge to the jury, that if they have a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused it is their sworn duty to give the benefit of that doubt to the accused. In the cases of those under 18 years of age, even despite sentence of hanging being imposed, no sentences have been carried out.
It is interesting to note the number of commutations in Canada after a sentence of hanging for murder has been imposed. I have all the figures here. They show that the sentences of more people for hanging were commuted than actual hangings that have taken place. As I pointed out, in the last ten years hangings for murder in Canada have decreased considerably over the previous ten years. I submit with respect that we in this legislature should rely not only on our own judgment in these things but on the judgment of other lawyers and preservers of the peace who have given consideration to this matter in previous debates in the house.
In speaking in the debate, the late respected Ernest Lapointe, minister of justice, at page 1285 of Hansard, volume 2, 1924, quoted the Right Hon. Arthur Henderson, home secretary of Great Britain, when dealing with a deputation from societies seeking the abolition of the death penalty in England, as follows:
He pointed out, however, that any government must take public opinion into account, and that so

Criminal Code Amendment far as his long parliamentary experience went there was little evidence of any general public desire for abolition, the subject not having been debated for many years. He also pointed out that before a government could recommend an alteration in that law they would have to consider very carefully what satisfactory alternative punishment they could properly suggest.
Mr. Lapointe gave his opinion as follows:
I am in the same position in this country, and I must share the views of Mr. Henderson. As far as my own personal feelings are concerned, by temperament and by instinct I would be inclined to vote for the bill, but from a high sense of duty I feel that I cannot do so, and that for the present we must retain capital punishment. H I were convinced that any other form of punishment would be as effective for the protection of the Canadian people, it would be my duty to recommend its adoption. It is because I do not believe that capital punishment can be replaced by any other form of punishment which would be as effective that I am forced to take this stand.
That was the opinion of a very eminent Canadian. In addition, there is the opinion of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen in the same debate, who expressed similar views. He also stated that, in his opinion, hanging did act as a definite deterrent on the commission of the crime of murder. The argument can be used, and has been used by the hon. member who preceded me, that in one, two or three cases the actual hanging was not done in a very workmanlike manner. But these are exceptional cases. He will find that is true if he checks over the debates that have taken place in this house, because they went thoroughly into that matter.
In the same debate at page 1297 of Hansard the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, former prime minister, said:
If I believed that the bill which the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) has introduced would make for the preservation of innocent human life, would make in the end for a greater saving of human life, as is his object in proposing to substitute a sentence for life instead of the death penalty, I would vote with him. But I believe to the contrary; I believe that the deterrent effect of the death penalty, having regard to human society as it is constituted and to human character as we know it, is in the end to protect innocent people from the murderous assaults that may be made upon them by some of the individuals who compose our human society.
I believe that the death penalty does Jiave a deterrent effect, and I feel that more strongly because of the knowledge I have of the number of capital cases that have come before the cabinet in the short time in which this government has been in office, where we have had before us the circumstances of every individual case of murder that has taken place. These cases have revealed clearly the fact that the men who have been found guilty of murder have premeditated the crime for the most part from motives of lust or avarice. Were they and others like them to suffer only life imprisonment for their crimes, knowing the psychological effect exercised upon other minds and natures when such crimes are committed, I believe that the number of murders would vastly increase once the death penalty were abolished.

In addition, the argument has been used that if we dispense with the death penalty people will do as they have done in the southern states, namely, invoke the unwritten law and start to lynch. I have not very much fear of Canadians following that course. However, that is an argument that has been used against the abolition of the death penalty.


Some hon. Members:: Nine o'clock.


Alan Carl Stewart: I would say further that if you pass the amendment you will in effect be saying:	No matter how dastardly
the crime, no matter how long he may have premeditated it, he could offend against society with impunity, knowing he would not have to face the death penalty of hanging. In cases which have been occurring with frequency, such as men entering homes, store premises and banks, with gun in hand, killing old age pensioners for their cheques, young bank tellers, aged storekeepers, surely these men who deliberately and premeditatedly kill have placed themselves beyond the pale of human sympathy, and we should be concerned, not with sympathy for them, but with sympathy for the thousands of men, women and children throughout the land whose lives are in our keeping. Human life is getting too cheap in Canada at the hands of armed thugs, and the thing for us to do is to maintain the supreme punishment.
It is idle to ask: Where are your statistics as to whether hanging deters murderers? It seems to me that any lawyer who is handling cases and is not, through long practice, entirely prejudiced in favour of the accused, knows that hanging is a deterrent. Every soldier who served overseas knows that a certain law of death for desertion was a deterrent. Every individual Canadian citizen knows that the ignominious death by hanging is a deterrent and that people who through passion, drunkenness or otherwise are inclined to carry on on many occasions are deterred in their own minds by threat of the sentence of hanging by the neck. If they knew that all they could suffer was a term of imprisonment which might be shortened by the assistance of friends and those people who will always sign a petition, is it not logical to assume that some of them at least would commit the crime if this deterrent were removed?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Nine o'clock.


Alan Carl Stewart: I am just about through. You are inviting them to do so and you will be responsible for the death of more innocent people. Yours will be the responsibility and I for one do not intend to assume it. We owe protection to the public and a sentence of hanging is the protection to

innocent men, women and children. It should be noted that when a vote was taken in 1924 on a similar bill it was defeated 92 to 29. Another bill was introduced later on and was again defeated in the house. There are other lengthy quotations I could give from the late R. B. Bennett, who was also against the abolition of capital punishment.
Some of us have defended men charged with murder and have been rather successful in saving a lot of rope, according to the mounted police. Some of us are able to say that none of our clients was ever hanged, although perhaps the public have thought that they should have been. In England the House of Lords refused to abolish capital punishment and we in Canada should be most careful before we remove this protection for innocent men, women and children from some thugs on the street who are ready to commit premeditated murder with a gun. I am against the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: It being nine o'clock the house will resume the business which was under discussion at six o'clock.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bradley for the appointment of a special committee to consider and suggest amendments to the Dominion Elections Act.
George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, when we rose for the dinner recess I had expressed a desire to add a few words to the remarks of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) who had stressed the desirability of revising the rules governing the recording of the votes of servicemen. During the last election servicemen across Canada were permitted to record their choice of candidates in the various constituencies, whether they were serving in one of His Majesty's Canadian ships or in one of the various stations of the army or air force.
According to the reports which have been received since the general election, and particularly in view of the evidence produced at an inquiry held into the election of a member in Nova Scotia, it is quite evident that there was much misunderstanding by those charged with the responsibility of recording votes and by those who wanted to cast votes for particular candidates. The report of the commissioners to be found on page 80 of Votes and Proceedings contains these words:
The officers in charge seem to have had little conception of the importance of their duties and the necessity of strictly carrying out the regula-
Dominion Elections Act tions. Matters were not improved by a "signal" from air force headquarters which the officer interpreted to mean that he was to make no inquiry as to the qualification of voters and that once an envelope was presented to him with a signature, he was to give the holder a ballot even if he knew that the person was not entitled to vote.
I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that there would be considerable anxiety or indifference or disagreement in connection with the methods by which the servicemen were to cast their votes. It is not customary in the services to discuss politics or the various doctrines advanced by political parties or the methods by which candidates are elected. I think the officers of the services have complete justification for pleading ignorance of the details of carrying out an election. Therefore if the responsibility for the recording of votes can be removed from the commanding officers to officials of the chief electoral officer, so much the better.
I should like to call attention to one phrase in the paragraph I have quoted where reference is made to the envelope being presented with a signature. That caused a great deal of uncertainty in the minds of service voters. When a man entered a polling booth established in the company office or the training centre or the ship, he was presented with an envelope upon which was written the name of the voter. The man recorded his vote for the candidate in his particular constituency, placed his ballot in the envelope which was sealed in his presence, and the envelope was then dispatched to some central headquarters where it was opened before a returning officer and such scrutineers as might be appointed.
Personally I believe that everything was aboveboard, but in the mind of the serviceman there was always the doubt as to whether the manner in which he had recorded his vote might not have been noticed and recorded because of his having signed his name on the envelope. I do not think he blamed his own officer but he had the idea that somewhere along the chain an opportunity would be afforded to some unknown individual to open the envelope and see how he had voted. I am quite prepared to admit that those doubts were quite unjustified, but they still remained in the mind of the ordinary serviceman. He felt that he was not being given the privilege of a secret ballot, that an opportunity was being afforded to someone in the Department of National Defence or elsewhere in the government service to open that envelope and see how he had recorded his vote.
An opportunity is now being given to revise the system of recording the servicemen's votes. I hope that this committee will review

Dominion Elections Act the system so that the serviceman may feel that he has the same privilege as any other Canadian citizen of recording his vote secretly so that nobody, either directly or indirectly connected with him, may be able to ascertain how he has cast his vote. This is one of the main things the committee should inquire into when reviewing amendments to the elections act.
There is another point I should like to raise, and that is regarding fishermen. The fishermen are given the opportunity of recording their votes at advanced polls, but I understand that these polls were not established in all constituencies where there were a number of fishermen. The result was that a fisherman going to sea on his lawful business and expecting to be away on election day could not record his vote in his own constituency; he had to go to a neighbouring constituency.
I take this opportunity of bringing these two points to the attention of the committee in the hope that they will review them and see whether amendments cannot be introduced to relieve the uncertainty in the mind of the serviceman and to give the fisherman the opportunity of recording his vote in his own constituency when it is necessary for him to be at sea to carry on his fishing [DOT] operations according to the season of the year.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to make certain observations with reference to the conduct of elections in general, and I think perhaps this is an appropriate time to do so. First of all I think it is advisable that our general election machinery and procedure for taking the expressed will of the people should be subject to such a review from time to time as this motion envisages. I thought the subject was debated on a rather broad basis this afternoon, and I should like to mention one thing which was said by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell). I only do so because his judgment and views are highly respected in the house, and I would not mention my disagreement with him if it were not for the high respect in which his views are held. I do not like his suggestion of Americanizing our way of holding elections.
I realize there may be advantages in the suggestion he has made of regular general elections, but I think such advantages are overruled, overbalanced and outweighed by the numerous advantages of the British system. It may be, as he says, that the dice are somewhat loaded in favour of a government, but after all we who have been in the opposition for a long time have perhaps become accustomed to certain things that are almost inherent in our system with respect to oppositions and governments. Even if the dice are
[Mr. Pearkes.l

a little loaded in favour of a government nevertheless I think a government ought to be given a certain amount of elasticity and non-rigidity in choosing the time when a general election is to be held, but of course within the statutory limits that are presently provided. Whenever a government feels that it should consult the people it does so at its own risk because if the people think they have been consulted too soon or too late they always have the democratic right of dealing with the government on that point in addition to others.
I should not like to see this country come to the position where an election would have to be held on a definite date fixed for every four or five years and everybody aware of that date for years ahead. I should like to see the present system continued. I have great difficulty, Mr. Speaker, in competing with those who are talking over there.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Gordon Graydon: I should not like to see the committee deal with this matter in the manner suggested by the hon. member for Macleod. I believe there are advantages in our present system of leaving it in the hands of a government to decide when to go to the country, within certain statutory limitations. I believe if we departed from that system we would lose something so far as our democratic British principles are concerned, and I think we would feel the loss greatly. Even if some of us have been in opposition for a long time we are still prepared to allow the government to exercise that function because it is a part of our British system, and that must always be preserved.
There is another point I should like to mention. Although there may be instances here and there in the public life of Canada, and in some cases they may have been rather glaring, I think most members of the house who have been here for any length of time will agree with me that, taking a broad view of the whole political picture in Canada, Canadians conduct their elections in a pretty clean manner, and I doubt if any other part of the world does so any more cleanly than we do. We all have our weaknesses, but in my time in any event, so far as elections are concerned, I have no knowledge of anything other than thoughtless irregularities, and none of them have finally affected the ultimate results so far as the will of the people was concerned.
That does not mean we should rest upon our oars. I think it is the duty and responsibility of members of parliament to try to maintain as great a degree of purity in our election affairs as possible. In these days when people with other ideologies are trying to upset our

method of government and substitute therefor certain systems under which we would not have any election act as we understand it, I think it devolves upon us, and the responsibility becomes just that much heavier, to see that we try to conduct ourselves on a high plane in democratic elections in Canada and in other democratic states throughout the world.
I really wanted to mention two details which the committee in their wisdom might decide to deal with. One is the question of providing advance polls, as suggested by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes). I think there are many of us who feel that there ought to be more provision for advance polls in our ridings. I am rather inclined to think that the act might be widened a little to take in others who are not presently included so far as the right to vote at an advance poll is concerned. It is rather limited in its application at the present time. Because of people having to travel, because of numbers of people living in places other than where they are working, it seems to me we might widen the provisions of the present act to allow certain other classes to vote at advance polls, and to try to arrange for such polls in every riding if at all possible.
I should like to make one other observation in that connection. In many ridings there are a great number of commuters, hundreds of whom use railway trains. In the House of Commons there must be at least thirty or thirty-five members, and perhaps more than that, who do not represent city ridings but ridings that are not too far away from cities, and the people in their constituencies are able to commute in and out to work. With our present hours of voting many good citizens are prevented from utilizing their franchise at all. In some instances in urban constituencies people are given two hours to vote, but so far as the commuter is concerned very often it means the loss of a whole day's work if he is going to vote at all. If he must travel by train for thirty, thirty-five or forty miles to get to his work he has to leave before the poll opens and cannot possibly return before it closes. So I think the committee ought to consider some provision whereby this very responsible section of our people may not be disfranchised by reason of any such obstacles put in their way,
Then I wanted to mention those who may be incapacitated by reason of illness at the time of an election. I know I am treading upon dangerous ground when I mention that subject, because if we were to open the door as wide as we might wish, having in mind some individual cases of which we have knowledge, we might find ourselves in the
Dominion Elections Act position of almost providing curb service for the people in connection with the exercise of their franchise. None of us would want to go anything like that far, I am sure; nevertheless where we have large numbers of people in hospitals and similar institutions, where the practical obstacles would not appear to be too great, I do believe we should provide some service which would permit them to record their votes. I am quite sure our hospital population on any given date would amount to a sizeable figure, and I do not think those people should have insult added to injury, if I may so express it, by not only suffering the inconvenience and pain of illness but by losing their franchise as well. I should like to see this committee discuss that matter and deal with it as they may see fit. I have no further suggestions to offer in that regard. I know many doubts will be expressed as to the practicability of such a proposal; nevertheless I believe the matter should be fully aired, and if there is some practical way by which it can be done then I think those of our people who are ill on election day should be given the opportunity of exercising their franchise in the normal way.
My last point is in connection with the polling of the maximum number of votes on election day. Members of parliament and men and women actively interested in the political realm generally wonder why people do not get out to vote in larger numbers; but of course all people are not as interested as members of parliament, candidates and those taking part in the work of an election. Very often when we have a particular interest we think everyone else should have the same interest. Unfortunately that is not the case, though a strong argument might be advanced that after all our people should have no greater interest than their interest in our democratic processes, and I subscribe to that argument. But I think we must recognize the public's position as well as our own. I remember a friend of mine, who did not belong to my political faith, once saying to me, "I cannot understand it. At a gathering the other night none of my friends knew anyone by name in the House of Commons except two cabinet ministers."


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which two?


Gordon Graydon: I think he mentioned the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), and I took him for two. I replied, "I would not worry too much about that. The public cannot be expected to take an interest in everything; they have not time." I went on to ask him what church he belonged to, and he said the United Church. I said, "Well, you should be interested in your own church.

Dominion Elections Act Who is your moderator?" He replied, "By dads, I don't know. I knew the one ten years ago, but I have not known one since then." So I think we must not ask too much of the public; they are only human; but I do believe they should be encouraged and assisted to reach the polls on election day. A great many people never bother much about an election until it is almost upon them. Great numbers do not make any plans for going to the polling booths; many do not even bother to find out where they are until they go to vote. One thing that might be suggested by way of reform would be to show people where and when they vote. This perhaps would not be so essential in a rural constituency, but it is particularly important where the population is more heavily concentrated.
So I believe we might consider going back to the practice which once was followed, in my opinion with very good results; that is, the practice of sending postcards to the voters a week or less before the election, showing the place, date and hours of voting. Many candidates do this themselves in order to get the vote out. I have not done it, but I know of others who have gone to great expense in sending out postcards a few days before the election showing where the voters should go to cast their ballots; and I believe that is an outlay the government itself might well assume. Hon. members will recall that under the present legislation a copy of the voters' list for the particular subdivision must be sent to each qualified voter; and on that list the voter will see the place of polling, the date, and the hours. However, I am afraid we are all the same, and it is easy to lose a piece of paper even as large as that. Most people do not have a filing system or a filing clerk, and these things get mislaid. Another point is that these lists are sent out some two or three weeks before the election, though at the moment I have forgotten the exact time, since the revision has not taken place up to that time; and in the interval the whole business is often forgotten.
I am going to suggest to the committee that when they sit they might profitably consider leaving that voters' list provision as it is.
I think that is a good idea, because people can see whether someone else is on or off the list and the revision becomes that much simpler. I would not touch that provision, but I would add to what is already in the regulations the sending out of a card approximately a week before election day, notifying every qualified voter on the list where he or she should vote, the date of the polling, and the hours of polling. My judgment in this connection would perhaps be tempered by one consideration. If it were a tremendous
IMr. Graydon.]

expense to do this, then perhaps it would have to be considered in the light of the expenditure that would be incurred. Having regard to the importance that I attach, and which I fancy many members attach, to the desirability of getting as many people to the polls as possible on a voluntary basis, I suggest that this practice would be of inestimable value in seeing to it that the maximum number of qualified voters were at least shown the way to the polls.
I should like to make this suggestion in all good faith to the committee, in the hope that it will be considered. I am not a member of the committee, so for that reason I thought it wise to put the suggestion on the record. I should like to see this, and the numerous other matters which will come before that committee, thoroughly aired. In Canada we should try, as far as possible to have eventually the best machinery, and the cleanest, most decent system of electing members of parliament that is to be found in any democratic country in the world. It is a challenge which I think the people of Canada ought to accept.


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, with the concluding remarks of the member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) I am sure the whole house will be in full agreement. Several members have referred to the service vote, having particular reference to what took place at Greenwood. I feel it is desirable, and I think it is only fair to the services, that I should say a word of explanation.
At the outset I should like to express my appreciation to the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) for his fair, yes his generous, remarks about the services and their rather perplexing difficulties when face to face with the responsibility of carrying out a poll under service conditions. I thought both the remarks of the member for Nanaimo and the concluding remarks of the member for Peel illustrated that we are on the right track in setting up a committee to try to improve things if we can.
With regard to the service vote, everyone recognizes that service personnel are citizens. I happen to think they are very good citizens, and as such are entitled to vote. In the case of Greenwood there was no question but that all the service personnel who voted were entitled to vote somewhere. The only question was, were they entitled to vote at Greenwood where they cast their vote? And the question, of course, applies only to a minority of the men at Greenwood. I think hon. members who have taken the trouble to read the judges' report, or who have looked into the matter as carefully as I have through

no less than two sets of officers investigating the situation on the spot, will reach the conclusion that, while certainly votes were cast improperly at Greenwood, the improper casting of those votes was in no way due to any irregularities in the conduct of the polls, but was due to the fact that some of the men made a declaration of residence on the outside of the envelope which was not in accordance with the defence services voting regulations.


Mr. Green:: The minister is not referring to the Greenwood riding?


Brooke Claxton: No, the Greenwood R.C.A.F. station where the poll was held. The riding, of course, was Annapolis-Kings.


Howard Charles Green: In Nova Scotia?


Brooke Claxton: In Nova Scotia. Most of the service votes were quite properly cast there.
The explanation of how this arose is, I believe, simple, but is due to a rather complicated situation. Before the war there were no special regulations for taking the service vote; the ordinary civil procedure applied. In 1940 special regulations were adopted, and those were in effect in the general elections of 1940 and 1945. By and large, they gave satisfaction. I believe that no hon. member in this house will question the statement which I now make, that in the three general elections, 1940, 1945 and 1949, the way in which the service vote was taken showed a remarkable record of fairness.
At the conclusion of the war it was felt that the 1945 regulations required some additions to take care of the fact that service personnel would now be resident for considerable periods of time at stations which were at isolated centres. Accordingly when the election committee of this house was set up in 1947, the chief electoral officer put before that committee his recommendations as to the defence services voting regulations. The committee attached to its reports the text of the regulations as he had recommended them. Those are the regulations that are now in effect, letter by letter in accordance with the recommendations of the committee. The only change from the regulations previously in effect made in the regulations adopted in 1948, in consequence of the committee's report in 1947, was that the regulations of 1945 were amended by adding paragraph (b) to section 23 (1), to provide for service personnel having an option as to where they would vote. It is that option, made in consequence of the parliamentary committee's recommendation, which gave rise to the difficulty.
Those service electors who voted in the Annapolis-Kings election who were stationed at Greenwood voted in the place where they
Dominion Elections Act were ordinarily resident, as that term is used in reference to civilian electors in the election act. Had they been civilians, they would have been entitled to vote at Greenwood for whichever candidate they chose, but because of the special provision in the service regulations in order to vote at Greenwood they were required to make a declaration prior to January 1, 1949, almost six months before the election. It was something that few of them could be expected to do. This matter was called to their attention in orders, but still, in the nature of things, very few citizens will take some step six months before an election, before indeed the election is even announced, to put themselves in a position to vote. It was that requirement and that complication which gave rise to the difficulty.
I think hon. members will appreciate the fact that while the difficulty exists and has resulted in much misunderstanding, to use the words of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), and it is that misunderstanding which has given rise to this situation, it is by no means an easy matter to correct. It is by no means an easy matter to provide for a method of election which will enable service personnel situated at isolated centres, such as Shilo, Rivers, Goose Bay and a dozen other places across Canada, to exercise their franchise in the same way as an ordinary citizen would. Yet I believe it is desirable that, as far as possible, service personnel should exercise their franchise in the same way as the civilian.
The question was asked whether the committee would have the power to deal with this matter. Of course the committee has power to deal with everything having regard to the elections act. I may tell the members of the house that this is a matter that has been giving the officers of the Department of National Defence and the chief electoral officer a good deal of concern. They have been looking into the situation, examining how it is dealt with in other countries and trying to work out some suggestions that may be put before the committee for its consideration. But that is, I suggest, by no means easy. In any event, the committee and the house can be assured that in its work, with regard to both civilian voting and service voting, it will have the full co-operation of the officers concerned and of the officers of the Department of National Defence.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to say just a few words, Mr. Speaker, before this motion carries. A good many suggestions have been made today which I hope the committee will consider. While I may not agree with all of them, it seems to me that many good points

Dominion Elections Act have been brought to the attention of the committee. There is just one that I would like to emphasize and perhaps I will go a little bit further than the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) went. I refer to the grievance that people feel when they are denied the right to vote because they have to be away from their home constituency on election day.
The hon. member for Peel made a useful suggestion when he proposed that the provision for voting at the advance poll should be widened somewhat. He suggested that the categories of people entitled to vote should be enlarged. I see no reason why there should be any limitation at all on the classes or categories of people entitled to vote at the advance poll. I know, for example, that in provincial elections in my own province of Manitoba it is possible for anyone who has to be away from his home constituency on election day to vote at the advance poll, simply by declaring that he has to be away.
Another possible solution of the problem might be found by taking a leaf from the book of British Columbia with respect to their practice in provincial elections. I understand that in that province there is quite an extensive arrangement for absentee voting. In other words, no matter where you are in the province of British Columbia on election day, you can cast your vote. If you are in your own constituency, you vote at your own poll. If you are out of your own constituency, you are permitted to vote wherever you are and to cast a ballot for the candidate of your choice back in your own constituency.


Howard Charles Green: Provided that you are on the list.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) makes the necessary interjection that you have to be on the list. I am not dealing with that feature. I believe suggestions have already been made today as to the desirability of taking the list in the most effective way. My point is that there are these two cases that I am citing, the unlimited use of the advance poll in the province of Manitoba and the use of absentee voting in the province of British Columbia, which have to a large extent solved the problem of voters who have to be away from home on election day.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly.


Howard Charles Green: Would the hon. member suggest that a person who might be on the list in British Columbia could vote in Halifax?


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a matter of fact, I was going to come to that point, and to say that it might create some difficulty if the provision were as wide as that. I am not trying to spell out all the details. I will leave that to the committee in consultation with the chief electoral officer and those who are experts in this field. A possibility might be that a person could vote anywhere within the province to which he belongs. But I think if that limitation were made it would then be desirable to couple with it the suggestion I have already made about the advance poll. In other words, I feel that anyone who has to be away should be permitted to vote, and the advance poll seems to be the best solution to the problem. In addition, I would suggest that the time for the advance poll should be made just as many days in advance of the actual polling date as is administratively possible. After all, in a democratic election our aim is to get out to the polls as many as possible of the people who are entitled to vote. Once we have made sure that there is nothing out of the way going on, that no people are on the list who are not entitled to be on it, every effort should then be made not to restrict or to limit people from voting but rather to facilitate their voting. I strongly urge the committee to consider one or the other or both of these suggestions. As I say, I have cited the practice in those two provinces. A possible solution would be a combination of the two of them.
I know that this matter has been considered when	the	elections act	has	beenunder review on former occasions, and that proposals such	as	I am making have	beenrejected. Bui	in	the meantime	we	havehad another election. Thinking of my own experience on	June 27 of last	year, the
grievance or the complaint that was drawn to my attention most often was that of persons who were denied the right to vote because they had to be away from their own constituency on election day. I would strongly urge the committee this time to try to meet that problem.
There is just one other thought concerning which I would like to say a word or two; and this is more in the nature of a plea to the government than to the committee. The matter was mentioned this afternoon by other speakers. It is that of the desirability of the next and future redistributions being made not by a parliamentary committee but by some qualified independent commission. The last time the matter of redistribution came before this house I had the privilege

of moving an amendment to try to give effect to that idea, but the house did not see fit to support that amendment.
One of the arguments advanced at the time was that the need for getting the job done then was urgent. I suppose, Mr. Speaker, if we wait until redistribution comes again and then propose the idea that it should be done by an independent commission rather than by a committee of the house we shall then be told, "Here is a job that has got to be done now; the election is just around the corner", and so on. Obviously, the time to deal with a question like this is not just on the eve of an election or not just at the time of the redistribution itself; the time to deal with it is in advance, when it can be considered objectively. I would strongly urge the government-which, after all, has to give the house a lead in these matters- to consider the possibility of bringing in within a year or two a bill to provide that redistribution in Canada in future years might be done, not by a committee of this house, but by an independent commission, as is done in most other democratic countries.


Mr. E. A. McCusker (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few brief observations. One is on the advance poll. The greatest grievance that I observed in the constituency I have the honour to represent was the great number of people who were forced to take their holidays at the time of the election. They were told: you can take your holidays in the last week in June and the first week in July. They had to forgo their holidays, or forgo the privilege of voting. You can well understand that a lot of them could not afford to give up their holidays. They are planned ahead. Therefore provision should be made for people who have to take their summer holidays to vote, as well as railwaymen, commercial travellers and other types of people who are allowed to vote at the advance polls.
The other matter to which I wish to refer is the soldier vote. I wish to make some observations on that as I had the privilege to be in on a recount where the soldiers' vote came under observation. I want to assure the house that the secrecy of the individual vote was not broken. There were some 275 or 300 votes counted. I do not think that in an individual case the name of the man could have been identified with the vote, but the trend of the vote was divulged. And while I say it was very flattering, I do not think it is quite fair to place the military in a position where the trend of their vote is divulged. I think they should have the opportunity of having their
Dominion Elections Act ballots counted at the same time that the civilian ballots are counted so that the secrecy is maintained.
These are the only two observations I have. I may say that on the recount I had the opportunity to scrutinize closely every vote and every ballot in the constituency which I represent. I am proud of the way the people marked their ballots. I do not mean proud for whom they marked, but the tidy way in which they marked them.


Mr. L. A. Mutch (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, I was one of those on the committee in 1948 who took a great deal of time dealing with the question of voting at advance polls. I do not anticipate being on the committee at this time, but 1 think anyone who represents an almost wholly urban riding, as I do, cannot help but be seized with the importance of the subject. If we are not to disfranchise a large number of people, and if we are not to draw distinctions between people according to the nature of their employment, it should be a serious purpose of this committee to devise some more general method of taking the advance polls.
In 1948 I had the opportunity to question experts with respect to this. We had before us the resolution of a former committee and the evidence. I have forgotten the date. I think it was 1937. It was back some time at any rate. I have now had the experience of four elections at different times of the year, and I have some knowledge of what the nature of the problem is. It is wholly impossible to explain to a man whose livelihood demands that he be away from home on election day-and the same applies to a woman-that it is all right for him to lose his vote; whereas others, because they happen to fall within a certain professional classification, are able to take advantage of the advance polls. I do not go so far as one of the speakers went a little while ago in suggesting that it is necessary to have advance polls possibly in every polling division, and certainly not the multiplicity of advance polls that the then chief electoral officer seemed to fear when I made my argument in 1948. But I know of my own knowledge, and because I recorded them, of some 365 persons who were legitimately absent from the riding of South Winnipeg in the election in 1949, and I am sure that, if I knew that many, proportionately at any rate the other candidates must have known of another couple of hundred. Whether the number be that large, or less, or twice as many, the principle of classifying people as to their opportunity to vote by the particular occupation which they seem to have is too restricted. If the committee does not do anything else, it ought to

Dominion Elections Act see to it that the opportunities for advance-poll voting are broadened. I do not go so far as to say that .because someone wants to be away on holidays or wants to open up a summer camp two or three days earlier, wants to open on a Friday instead of waiting until Monday, they should be considered. You cannot legislate for peculiar and particular circumstances specifically; that only happens when you have a June or July election as a rule in this country. But the principle that I object to most is the classification by occupation to the extent that it is restricted. I do hope, and I am sure all hon. members from urban constituencies in particular must hope, that the committee will give serious consideration, and will make further recommendations to broaden the opportunity for voting at the advance polls.
I know, of course, that no matter how broad you make it, or how much you explain the differences in other ways, there will always be people on the borderline and you will continue to have the problems; but you will reduce the problem, which at the moment is a grievance to a large number of worthy people.
The only other thing I want to say, Mr. Speaker, is this. In 1948 we looked very carefully into the principle of absentee voting.
I would say this. I have not yet seen-I suspect no one else here has seen-a system of absentee voting which is above the suspicion which the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) mentioned a little while ago in respect to the envelope voting that was exercised by the troops in the last election. Somehow that doubt of the secrecy of the ballot, where the ballot is not cast in the locality where the elector is entitled to vote, arises. That doubt is there. Those of us who are a little older had some unfortunate experiences back in the period of world war I when large blocks of absentee ballots were put on the auction block. That does not express exactly what I mean but the result was entirely the same. We do not want a repetition of that. Therefore the committee should walk very warily in considering any extension of the principle of the absentee ballot.


Mr. L. T. Stick (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a very few words in respect of the position of the advance poll in Newfoundland. I would like to bring to the attention of the house the fact that thousands of our fishermen leave home usually the latter part of May and early in June, and go hundreds of miles away for the summer fishing. In my riding there were about six thousand who lost their vote. I would bring 

to the attention of the committee some method whereby advance polls should be made for these men.
In my riding there is a coastline of about 500 miles. There were two advance polls, one in Harbour Grace and the other in Clarenville, about 150 miles apart. I do not expect the fishermen to go 50 miles to cast their votes. I do think that some consideration should be given whereby advance polls would be set up earlier and in the different localities so that these men can cast their votes before they leave home and go away. It is a serious problem in Newfoundland in the summertime where thousands upon thousands of our men leave their homes and go to Labrador and elsewhere. If we have an election on June 27 at another time thousands of these men will be disfranchised.
I want to bring to the attention of the house and of this committee this problem so that all possible means may be devised in order that they may be able to cast their votes before leaving home.


Mr. W. G. Blair (Lanark):: I have had some difficulty with regard to this matter of the advance poll in my own riding. There are four towns in the riding with quite a few railroad people. Of these four towns only one town has had an advance poll, where there is a large railroad centre. The only people who can vote at that advance poll are the people who are on the voters' list of that town. Railroad men from other parts of the constituency have not the opportunity to vote at that advance poll.
Arrangements should be made whereby railroad men and others who might be qualified for the advance poll could get a certificate from the returning officer of the constituency indicating they were entitled to the advance poll. These men I am sure would be ready to travel the necessary distance if there were only the one advance poll in the constituency. Where there is no advance poll in two of the towns these men, especially the railroad people, have no opportunity to vote. A dominion election is usually held on a Monday and if the advance poll were ready three days before the election they would have an opportunity of casting their votes.
Previously there was only the one advance poll in the constituency at Smiths Falls but in the next election there will be an advance poll in one of the other towns. But that still leaves two towns without advance polls. As I suggest, railroad men and others who are eligible to vote should be able to go to the returning officer and obtain a certificate permitting them to vote at any place. If there

were only the one advance poll in the constituency they would be entitled to go there to vote.


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I have heard nothing said in favour of the single transferable vote.


James Arthur Ross: The hon. member was not here this afternoon.


William Moore Benidickson: I do not want to delay the setting up of this committee, but I want the house to know that my views have not altered. I was one of those in the last parliament who made the suggestion that the transferable vote should be permitted at the last election. I do not want the house to think that the decision reached in that election has changed my views in any way. I want this committee to study the single transferable or the single alternative vote as it is sometimes called.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Speaker, there is one matter that has received little attention during this debate and which 1 should like to emphasize. I thinl* anyone who represents a metropolitan or suburban constituency realizes that more voters are disfranchised because of the hours of voting than because of any regulation.
There are many voters in Toronto, and particularly in the suburbs, who have to travel from 12 to 15 miles in order to vote. It is true that workers are permitted time off, but in actual practice there are literally hundreds who do not apply for it. To wait until the factory closes at five o'clock and then attempt to get home before the polling booth closes is just not possible.
What I am saying applies more particularly to by-elections than to general elections. In a general election it is a common practice for factories to give employees time off during the day, but it happens quite often in a byelection that there are only a few employees from the constituency concerned working in a plant and they hesitate to request time off. Almost invariably they depend upon getting home before the poll closes.
This is one feature that should be studied by the committee. There are many reasons why the polls should be kept open until eight o'clock instead of being closed at six o'clock under the present practice.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That a special committee be appointed to examine into the operations of the national research council;
National Research Council that the said committee be empowered to sit during the sittings of the house and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee; and to report from time to time; that the said committee consist of Messrs. Breit-haupt, Brooks, Coldwell, Bourget, Gibson, Green, Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth), Low, McCusker, Mcllraith, Murphy, Pinard, Stuart (Charlotte), Winkler.
He said: In moving that a committee be appointed to examine into the operations of the national research council, perhaps I should say a word about the subject matter of the motion. The national research council is a corporate body operating under the general auspices of the committee of the privy council on scientific and industrial research, of which the Minister of Trade and Commerce is chairman and the ministers of agriculture, fisheries, mines and technical surveys, national defence, national health and welfare, and resources and development are members.
The honorary council, which acts as a general board of scientific directors, includes the president and vice-presidents of the council and seventeen other distinguished Canadians appointed for a term of three years and chosen to represent industry, labour and university scientific departments. I would like to pay tribute to this distinguished group of Canadians, among whom are three presidents of universities, two of Canada's outstanding medical scientists, two industrialists with wide experience and other outstanding scientific and technical people. These gentlemen give their time on an honorary basis and spend from three to four days, four times a year, on most important work.
Nearly 3,000 persons are employed in the laboratories, which include biology, chemistry and physics, in the pure sciences; and engineering divisions for aeronautical and hydraulic studies, radio and electrical engineering, and building research. A division of information services operates the library and the liaison offices, issues the Canadian Journal of Research, and through its technical information service offers scientific advice on manufacturing problems. The division of medical research has an office in the national research building, but its activities are largely conducted through grants and fellowships, tenable in medical schools.
Laboratories outside Ottawa include a flight research station at Arnprior, Ontario, and prairie regional laboratory at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, the maritime regional laboratory at Halifax, Nova Scotia, and the atomic energy project at Chalk River, Ontario. A post-doctorate fellowship plan enables scientists from many countries to share in the laboratory activities.
In addition to its laboratory research, the council awards scholarships and fellowships

National Research Council for post-graduate study and makes grants-in-aid to responsible persons in universities for research on approved projects, mostly in pure science.
About forty committees assist the council in the planning and direction of research projects on subjects of broad national interest.
While the work in the national research laboratories is directed chiefly toward increasing the efficiency of Canadian industry, the responsibility for and importance of pure scientific research as a means of keeping investigators abreast of world developments have been recognized and the fundamental work which is going on in the physics and chemistry divisions is of a high grade and is receiving international recognition. The junior positions of the establishment in the fundamental research divisions are being filled by post-doctorate fellowships. Under this plan more than 50 of the world's most distinguished young scientists from 37 different universities and from ten countries of the world have been brought together to work under leading research scientists at the council.
The national research council operates the Chalk River plant as an agent of the atomic energy control board. This establishment employs about 1,200 men and has a budget of about $6 million. I mention this as one of the responsibilities of the council but will not mention any details as I am dealing tonight with the research council in its -more restricted meaning.
One of the most recently established research divisions is associated with building. Because of the high level of construction activity in Canada difficulties have been experienced in building up a staff for this division, and because of the urgency for housing this division has deferred long-term research projects in favour of the more immediate and urgent problems of today. However, a regional station is being developed at Saskatoon to deal with the special problems of the prairies, and a large laboratory facility is being built in Ottawa for testing whole sections under severe cold weather conditions. This division acts as a scientific research arm for the housing corporation and its time and energies are largely devoted to the problems of the corporation. In addition, engineers in this division have co-operated with the authorities in various cities in connection with foundation, construction and subway problems.
Regarding the mechanical engineering laboratory, this is essentially an aeronautical laboratory and serves the research interests of the Royal Canadian Air Force, Canadian

aviation industry and the air transport systems. The structures unit of this division is testing full-scale models of the aircraft being made in Canada including the A.V. Roe jet fighter and the jet transport. A supersonic laboratory is being constructed which can test components, and at Arnprior at a very moderate cost a small transonic wind tunnel has been built into the wing of a Mustang aircraft which can operate as a flying wind tunnel. Facilities are available for making complete flight tests on aircraft including the installation of the wide range of complicated instruments required for such work.
The investigations of icing and the development of protective devices against this hazard have been carried on vigorously. At the present time an R.C.A.F. North Star aircraft has been fully equipped and is being used for this important work. In the hydraulics laboratory various models are being tested, and a 30-mile stretch of the Fraser river and its delta is under investigation in this way for possible improvements of the navigation channels. Also numerous problems associated with the -movement of logs in rivers, the study of fishways and the problems connected with log jams are being studied in the model tunnels. An extensive line of cold weather investigations is being carried out in the cold weather laboratories, and studies of the effect of low temperature on lubrication problems of motor vehicles, aircraft, diesel locomotives, and- many other equipments are being made.
As to the division of radio and electrical engineering, radio problems in connection with aircraft are also being studied in this laboratory. The high speeds of jet-propelled aircraft have brought innumerable problems in connection with antennae and this laboratory has designed a suppressed antenna for the new jet-propelled A. V. Roe transport. Much work has been done ori aids to navigation for both marine and air use. Experimental harbour control units have been established in both Halifax and Vancouver, and a marine radar set for merchant steamers designed by the research council is now in commercial production.
The radar section has also given assistance to other departments of government in connection with the development of shoran which makes -possible rapid and accurate surveying of large areas from aircraft. This division is also doing extensive service work for other departments of government, divisions of the council, and industry in the many specialized fields of electrical engineering and radio.

The chemistry division is divided into two sections, one dealing with the more fundamental aspects and the other with chemical engineering. The work of the fundamental section contributes directly to fundamental knowledge but it also assists and stimulates the applied divisions. In chemical engineering, work is being done in the fluidized bed techniques for the recovery of oil, and this work is showing promising results.
Recent tests on military and civilian aircraft have provided further evidence of the effectiveness of a rain repellant developed in this division which maintains a clear vision through aircraft wind screens when flying through rain. The officers of the council feel that this development is extremely important, and that not enough recognition has been given to it by operating air lines.
The textile laboratory carries on large amounts of service work in connection with the Canadian research institute of launderers and cleaners and the various departments of government. Its activities cover a very wide range of projects in connection with fibres and various synthetic fabrics, protection against various agencies, the efficacy of dry cleaning, and the suitability of fabrics for one hundred and one different purposes. Work on corrosion, protective coatings, rubber, as well as innumerable demands on the analytical laboratories, all serve the interests of Canadian industry in a very effective way.
The work in the division of applied biology includes fundamental and applied investigation on food preservation and the utilization of agricultural wastes and residues; fats and oils; seaweeds; and biological statistics. During the year a great deal of work was done on a model of a railway refrigerator car which shows great promise and will probably be adopted in the near future. The prairie regional laboratory at Saskatoon is now well established and the fermentations and microbiological work in connection with the utilization of agricultural waste products is being studied there.
The division of physics is responsible for maintaining scientific standards, and every year comparisons are made with comparable standards in the United States national bureau of standards and in various European laboratories.
The new spectroscopic laboratory established in this division this year will be one of the best equipped laboratories in Canada, and the fundamental work now being turned out by the director and his staff is of a very high order. The work on acoustics, cosmic rays, heat, industrial radiology and optics occupies the time of a large percentage of 55946-1071
National Research Council the staff, and is of invaluable assistance to industry and to other scientific laboratories.
In addition to the operation of the laboratory divisions the research council carries on a most important and extensive work of an extramural nature. The division of information services operates the national research library which is the best of its kind in Canada. This division serves not only the research staff but other scientific institutions throughout the country. This division is also responsible for the hundreds of publications which are put out each year, and it operates the technical information service which was set up with representatives located in all the provinces of Canada to give a direct field service to the smaller industries across the country. This activity is not spectacular but is, we feel, already producing results of great value to Canada.
Since its inception the council has awarded scholarships and made grants-in-aid to university professors. This year about a quarter of a million dollars will be distributed to perhaps 400 students across the dominion in the various sciences. I think few people recognize the extent of the assistance given-through the research council to the research workers in the universities of Canada. This year the total sum for this purpose will amount to nearly a million dollars, and indirectly this supports many hundreds of workers in research laboratories. The returns from the money so spent are, I think, far beyond the dollar value of the grants. In addition the council runs liaison offices in London and in Washington, and carries on many other activities too numerous to mention.
I have tried merely to outline very briefly the general work of the council. The committee will find other interesting activities which I have not touched upon. I am sure that the members of the committee, and through them this House of Commons, will benefit from the more detailed examination which this committee is to make.
I have been associated with the work of the council through the war and post-war years. I have some knowledge of the remarkable contribution of the council and its staff during the war years to the winning of the war. Almost every activity on the production front benefited from the work of the national research council. I am proud of the calibre of the men and women who make up the staff of the research council. The parliamentary committee will find there the same type of able and enthusiastic young scientists and workers they met at Chalk River. The committee will gain an appreciation of the refinement and precision of modern laboratory work. I am sure that hon.

National Research Council members of the committee can look forward to an informative and interesting series of meetings.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the statement just made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has been both interesting and helpful. I am sure it will be of great assistance to the members of the committee in their work, and I feel confident that the minister will have no cause to regret that this committee has been set up. As the house knows, its work is merely an extension of that done by the atomic energy committee set up last session; in fact the only difference in the resolution is the substitution of the words "national research council" for "atomic energy control board." While that committee on atomic energy was very small, being composed of only fourteen members, and while none of us were scientists, the work of the committee was of the greatest help to all those who had the privilege of serving on it. The esprit de corps of that committee was higher than that of any committee on which I have served in parliament. I notice that the personnel of the committee on the national research council is the same as the committee of last year; and I look forward, as I think we all do, to a worth-while effort.
The research council was set up in 1924 [DOT]and there were no amendments to the act until 1946, a year after the end of the recent war. Whether that was because the original act was so good or because not a great deal of interest was taken in the work of the research council, I do not know. As the minister has pointed out, the council did splendid work during the war, and in 1946 it was felt that the act should be amended to permit the council to carry on with the work that had been undertaken during the war years. For example, the council was given power to do more than mere research. It was given authority to carry some of its research into actual operations, and it was also given power to set up crown companies. The members of the official opposition did not think very much of that idea, nor do we think very much of it yet, but I believe only one or two companies have been set up under that power; the minister will correct me if I am wrong. The council was also given extended powers with respect to patent rights. I think it will be important for the committee to look into the activities which have been carried on under those increased powers conferred in 1946.
The minister has mentioned that the council is now engaged in research work having to do with home-building, which we all know is of the utmost importance. He has also


mentioned work in connection with the Fraser river. I believe a model of the lower Fraser valley has been set up at the university of British Columbia, and on the coast we are all expecting that as a result of these studies steps will be taken to prevent the bad flooding that occurs on the Fraser river, and to make sure that great river continues to benefit the people of that province. All these efforts are very much worth while.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, one of the fundamental beliefs of the Progressive Conservative party is that Canada's natural resources should be used in Canada to the greatest extent possible. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has had that pounded into him pretty hard over a good many weeks both last session and this session, and we hope to pound it into him even more. We believe the research council can help a great deal in making it possible for Canadians to use their natural resources at home. I was a little disappointed in the answer given by the minister yesterday with respect to prospecting for uranium. He made a statement in which he said there had been some increase in the guaranteed price, and at page 1596 of Hansard I asked:
Are the quantities of uranium ore now being produced considered by the government to be satisfactory?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The government has no reason to be dissatisfied. We would like to have more, but we have sufficient for our own purposes and have a surplus to sell to other friendly governments.
That was not a very enthusiastic statement. It was not the sort of answer that would get people excited about going out to look for uranium. Rightly or wrongly the people of this country believe there should be a drive to find more uranium. From the evidence given before the atomic energy committee last year I am not so sure that belief is correct; but if there is value in finding more uranium then I suggest to the minister that a more thrilling challenge should be placed before those Canadians who are interested in going out to look for uranium.
I mention that merely as an aside. We strongly favour the active promotion of scientific and industrial research in Canada. That is one reason we are very glad to see this committee set up. We believe every possible encouragement should be given our own scientists, both old and young. Those Canadian scientists who have remained in Canada have made a grand contribution to the life of the nation. Unfortunately many of our scientists, particularly young men, have been compelled to go to the United States. I hope it may be possible to keep an ever larger percentage of those brilliant young men in our own country. They are the product of our own schools and

universities, and I do not believe there are better universities anywhere in the world. It is just too bad that so many of the graduates have found it necessary to go away.
The other day I was very interested to read the report of a speech delivered by Dr. L. G. Cook of Chalk River. It so happens that when the atomic energy committee visited Chalk River the members of that committee met most of these leading scientists, and during that visit I had a chat with Dr. Cook. I had been inspired by the attitude of these men at Chalk River. They were keen about what they were doing, and no one was keener than Dr. Cook. I remember saying to him, "It is a grand thing that you young men are doing this job for Canada; I am glad that you are staying here, even though you might be able to get a higher salary if you went to the United States." I remember so clearly his reaction; it was immediate. Referring to the work he was doing, he said, "Oh, this is so exciting." When Dr. Cook made this speech in Ottawa, I think it was before the Rotary club a week or two ago, he made a challenging speech. I suggest it would be worth while for the members of the government and the private members of the house to read that speech because I think he was talking common sense. If his plan is followed, it will mean a great deal to the future of Canada.
I should like to say also, and I think all members of the house will agree with me, that the universities of this country are making a great contribution towards scientific development, as well as in the field of research. They deserve the commendation of the members of this house for the work they are doing. There is so much that one might say, but time is limited tonight. Several other members wish to speak, so I conclude by expressing the hope that this new committee will be able to make a worth-while contribution to the development of Canada, and personally I greatly appreciate the opportunity of serving on the committee.


Major James William Coldwell: am not going to prolong the discussion, because I think all of us are anxious to see this committee set up. I do want to join however the member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) in expressing appreciation of the setting up of this committee. For a number of years I have felt that the research council, as well as several of our other public organizations like the national film board, should be given an opportunity of appearing before a parliamentary committee to inform the members of the work they are doing. Through the members of parliament, the country
National Research Council would be given some indication of the valuable contribution these organizations are making.
Very few of us in this house, even those who have been here a number of years, know much about the research council. I remember driving along Sussex street a few years ago, seeing this old mill which was turned into a research facility for the national research council, and wondering what was coming out of a place of that sort. Suddenly during the war we saw on the Montreal road some fine buildings being erected surrounded by barbed wire, obviously under measures of security. We learned afterwards that they were for the national research council. During the war some of us had the opportunity of seeing some of the things the council was doing, such as research on synthetic rubber, and the pilot plants that were erected on Sussex street to see whether it could be obtained from milkweed and other products. This was at a time when rubber was exceedingly scarce.
A number of valuable contributions have been made both in war and in peace by this organization. Canadian industry has benefited from it. I would of course have preferred to see some crown companies established to utilize some of the fine discoveries for the public of Canada. I quite agree with the member for Vancouver-Quadra that we should be developing our resources primarily for Canada, but I want to stress the point that we should develop them for the Canadian people as a whole, and not for a few.


Howard Charles Green: We agree with that.


Major James William Coldwell: I am not going into that matter tonight, but I also want to join the hon. member in expressing appreciation of the work done in our universities, and to express regret that so many of our young scientists who have been trained, both in the national research council and in our universities, have to seek employment where salaries are more attractive and facilities are better. I think that is something that we must regret. Not only do these organizations need commendation; they need salaries and allowances later on that will enable them to do the kind of work and perform the services from-which Canada can benefit.
I do not want to delay the setting up of this committee, but I want to say also that I am pleased with what the minister said tonight. He gave us a fine if brief outline of the work of this council. I am quite sure that the committee will receive valuable information, and will understand the work of the research council at last-I was going to say "better", but I shall say at last. Then

Radio Broadcasting
through that committee both parliament and the country may be better informed of the valuable services rendered by this organization to Canada and its people.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Just before you put the motion to set up this committee, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word. I must confess that I know very little about the national research council, but there is a great deal that I should like to know. For that reason I sincerely welcome what the minister has done in setting up this committee, and because I am a member of the committee.
I should like to join with the two previous speakers in saying that perhaps one of the most valuable bits of work that can be done by the committee would be the creation of an informed body of opinion in this parliament. Such a body could be of service to the minister in connection with projects he would like to see the research council carry out for the good of the country. I have in mind the efforts the minister has been making to establish in Canada industries and productive enterprises that will help to make Canada much more self-sufficient than she has been. I know the minister has been much interested in expanding steel production. We have not yet begun to realize Canadian possibilities. In my judgment the research council could be of inestimable value in carrying out research in various fields in which it may be thought Canada could start producing things which she has had to get from other countries, and for which she is dependent upon other countries. In times of crisis, it is dangerous for Canada not to have within her borders the essentials for living. My sympathies are with what has already been said about developing Canada for Canadians. In my judgment, the research council can be of inestimable value in that direction through its work.
I should like to say a word about our young scientists. Through my work on the atomic energy committee last year, I was impressed with the fine young scientists I met. The young men-


Howard Charles Green: The young men and women.


Solon Earl Low: Yes, I must not forget the women, because actually some of the most brilliant scientists at Chalk River were young women. They were enthusiastic about their work, and they seemed to generate some sort of aura about them which one felt. You did not have to listen to them at all. On a number of occasions when I was at Chalk River I wondered if we had gone far enough in trying to make working conditions and salaries what they ought to be, in order to retain these young men and women. I think on one or two

occasions it was intimated that some of these scientists had been offered much larger salaries and incomes than they were getting, just to go to some other country; but they preferred to stay here because they felt that here they were part of the biggest thing in the world; and they were. I think that is commendable.
In the lesser fields, let us not forget the young men and women who are down in the first few grades of the scientific branches.
I happen to know some of those young people, having become acquainted with them here in Ottawa since I came here in 1945. I know many of them who have developed themselves quite well over the years. But sometimes one wonders whether we have done enough for them to make them feel satisfied to remain in Canada.
I welcome the opportunity of going into these things in the committee to find out what we can do in this house to back the minister and the research council in their efforts to keep here as many as we possibly can of the brilliant young men and women we are developing through our universities. I want to thank the minister for the fine statement he made tonight. I am sure it will be most helpful in our endeavours.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, March 31, consideration of the motion of Mr. McCann:
That a select committee be appointed on radio broadcasting to consider the annual report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and to review the policies and aims of the corporation and its regulations, revenues, expenditures and development, with power to examine and inquire into the matters and things herein referred to and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, and to send for persons, papers and records;
That the committee have power to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be deemed advisable or necessary;
That the committee have power to meet while the house is sitting;
That the committee shall consist of the following members: Messrs. Balcer, Boisvert, Cote (St. Johns-Iberville-Napierville), Decore, Diefenbaker, Fleming, Fulton, Gauthier (Portneuf), Gauthier (Sudbury), Hansell, Henry, Isnor, Kent, Knight, Langlois (Gaspe), Maybank, McCann, Murray (Cariboo), Richard (Ottawa East), Robinson, Riley, Smith (Moose Mountain), Smith (Calgary West), Stewart (Winnipeg North), and Whitman;
That the presence of at least nine members shall be a quorum of the said committee; and
That standing orders 64 and 65 be suspended in relation thereto.
Howard Charles Green: Were we told last night, Mr. Speaker, that this matter would be up for consideration today?


Alphonse Fournier: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Last night I announced that, after calling the departments into supply, we would then proceed with the resolutions to set up the following committees:	on the Dominion
Elections Act, 1938, and amendments; on national research council; and on radio broadcasting.


Howard Charles Green: Oh, yes.


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


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, March 23, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Claxton-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair:
That it is expedient to present a bill to revise and consolidate in one act the several acts respecting the Department of National Defence and the armed services of Canada, with provision inter alia for the payment of pay and allowances of officers and men of the forces, the salaries and expenses of members of the defence research board, fees and allowances of the members of the court martial appeal board, the compensation for loss or damage due to the exercise of emergency powers, advances to meet expenses and costs of calling out forces in aid of civil power, the acquisition and disposition of property and generally the costs of and incidental to the operation of the act, and all other matters directly concerning defence.
Brooke Claxton: When this resolution was before the committee on March 23 last, I was making a brief statement explaining the purposes of the bill which would be introduced if the resolution was adopted. At the outset may I repeat that it is the desire of the government to refer to a select committee of the house this resolution and also the other two resolutions standing in my name, namely with regard to a measure dealing with prize money and with regard to amendment of the Militia Pension Act. Our hope would be that it would be possible to set up that committee at the earliest possible moment so that it could start its work of studying these measures in the detailed way that that procedure would permit.
In emphasizing the desirability of this procedure I should like to call the attention .of the committee to the fact that the defence bill alone is the largest single measure to be put before parliament since the session
National Defence
of 1934. I do not believe that many of its provisions are controversial. Certainly when it was discussed-and it was thoroughly discussed in the other place last session- it was not evident that there was much in it that was the subject of controversy. What we would want to do would be to see that the measure received detailed consideration and we would hope that, in consequence of that consideration, the measure might be substantially improved. While it has had, as I have indicated, extensive consideration in the department, also by officers of the crown and by a committee and the chamber itself in the other place, there is still room for improvement in this bill. Our hope would be that we would work together to make it the best possible piece of legislation of its kind to be found anywhere.
In its preparation we have had the advantage of similar work being carried on in the United States and in the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom a committee called the Lewis committee was set up to report on proposed changes in court martial procedure. In the United States there was also a committee set up which resulted in legislation being proposed which is still before the courts. We have had the advantage of considering both the report of the Lewis committee in the United Kingdom and the steps that have been taken in the United States. This bill, in its preparation, I think has gone through no less than some eleven complete redrafts and has been subjected to examination not only by the legal advisers of the department but also by senior officers in the services; and on a number-of occasions it has received the consideration of the chiefs of staff committee. It was considered by a special subcommittee of the cabinet, and I think I myself have been through five or six of the drafts completely. While the bill has had that study, I again emphasize the fact that we do not think it is perfect; and we would hope that hon. members would sit down with us and endeavour to make every possible necessary change in it. The purpose of the legislation is far more than simply to consolidate existing defence measures. The purposes are:
(1)	to include in one statute all legislation relating to the Department of National Defence and the Canadian forces;
(2)	to have a single code of service discipline so that sailors, soldiers and airmen will be subject to the same law;
(3)	to make all legislation applicable to service personnel Canadian legislation;
(4)	to obtain uniformity in the administration of service justice;

National Defence
(5)	to provide a right of appeal from the findings and sentences of courts martial;
(6)	to abolish field general courts martial;
(7)	to provide for a new trial on the discovery of new evidence;
(8)	to provide in the administration of the department more efficient and expeditious means for the transaction of routine business:
(9)	to establish the position and functions of the chiefs of staff;
(10)	to abolish, as obsolete, provisions for levee en masse and enrolment by ballot; and
(11)	to authorize the employment of regular forces to meet a national disaster, such as a major flood, and to permit the use of reserve forces for these purposes.
This measure, which will be introduced once the resolution is carried and the bill receives first reading, contains all the amendments made in the other place, and a number of minor technical changes proposed by the legal advisers of the government and of the department in consequence of subsequent study. However, these are not matters of substance, and can be explained in detail when the bill is before the committee.
I do ask the committee now if they would not agree to receive first reading of the bill so that it can be distributed. Our hope would be that for the reasons I have given there would not be too extensive a debate and we might proceed to the setting up of the committee before the session gets too well advanced, so ' that this very important bit of legislation can receive consideration at this session of parliament. If that course were accepted, following the second reading of the bill at some future date, we would propose to refer the prize money bill and the Militia Pension Act amendments to the same committee.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, it is our desire to co-operate with the government in facilitating the movement of this legislation by one step. Therefore I do not propose to make any extensive remarks today, on the understanding that when the bill is brought down for second reading there will be an opportunity for full discussion before it is submitted to the committee-


Brooke Claxton: Quite so.


George Randolph Pearkes: -if the minister desires to send it to the committee-because there were one or two points in connection with the bill which was presented to the other house which at least require further explanation and elaboration.


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member's attitude is greatly appreciated.


George Randolph Pearkes: We will facilitate it to that extent. Of course nothing can be said today regarding the decision to refer it to a committee.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Claxton thereupon moved for leave to to introduce Bill No. 133, respecting national defence.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



DEFENCE SERVICES PENSIONS


Brooke Claxton: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to amend the Militia Pension Act for the purpose of changing the title to "The Defence Services Pension Act"; removing anomalies and improving administration; changing the method of computing pensions and gratuities and establishing a service pension board to pass on requisitions for payment of pensions and gratuities.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
The Depuiy Chairman: In view of the understanding arrived at previously, am I to understand that I shall report this resolution now?


George Randolph Pearkes: On the understanding that there will be a full discussion on the second reading of the bill.


Brooke Claxton: Agreed.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Claxton thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 134, to amend the Militia Pension Act and change the title thereof.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADA PRIZE ACT


Brooke Claxton: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to provide for the payment and distribution of prize money out of prize money presently and prospectively in the consolidated revenue fund.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


The Deputy Chairman:: Does the same understanding prevail?


George Randolph Pearkes: I think we should have a statement from the minister. This is a more [DOT]debatable bill.


Brooke Claxton: The house has been very co-operative indeed. Could the co-operation [DOT]extend to this measure as well?


Howard Charles Green: Not a chance.
Canada Prize Act


Brooke Claxton: I move that we report progress.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow is private members' day, and we shall follow the procedure set out in standing order 15.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
1685
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 19, 1950