1950-05-23

[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. O. Campney (Vancouver Centre)
presented the first report of the special committee on Bill No. 133, respecting national defence, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as the calendar indicates, this is the 23rd of May, and because it is the school day immediately preceding May 24th it is being celebrated in the schools of several provinces as Empire day.
Empire day, as hon. members know, originated some fifty years ago, the purpose being to provide the pupils with a special occasion to study the history of Canada and to take part in such exercises as might increase their interest in their own country and strengthen their attachment to the empire. In other provinces where Empire day has not been so celebrated, I am quite sure that special occasions have been provided for the telling of tales of heroism and selfsacrifice, of leadership in civic affairs and of other glorious pages in our history.
In the past fifty years there has been a great change in our status. What was then a colony in an empire is now an independent nation in a commonwealth. We have by act of parliament established our own citizenship. Consequently, as I announced in the house on April 28, I approached the provincial premiers with the result that they all agreed to have arrangements made to the end that some occasion might be found today in the schools for exercises having in mind, in respect of the position of Canada in the commonwealth, the rights, the privileges, the duties and the responsibilities of Canadian citizenship. Not only are these exercises being held in the schools, but public-spirited organizations of all kinds are making this a special day in that regard.
I think I speak for all hon. members when I express appreciation to the provincial premiers; to the Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire, who have always been specially interested in the Empire day observances; to the various municipal officials and to officials of churches, service clubs, and other organizations, for their assistance and cooperation in this regard. Perhaps I may in particular express appreciation to the Canadian citizenship council, who have done so much to co-ordinate the activities of organizations promoting the study of Canadian citizenship.
In these past fifty years Canada has become a great nation. We have at all times discharged our national obligations promptly and honourably, and no country which does that needs to try by artificial means to create patriotism. On the other hand we should not ignore the desirability of providing an occasion for developing a sense of respect for the achievements of our people and for renewing our determination to exceed those achievements in the future.
Citizenship in Canada is founded on the faith that two of the proudest races of the world could each preserve their own language and their own creed and yet live together and develop a common nationality. To the partnership of the two races which held to that faith has been added the vigour and energy of thousands of others from most of the nations of the earth. These three streams in our national life have created a citizenship which with our endeavours will in the years to come give increasing reason for celebrating Canadian citizenship with sincerity and pride.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with the Prime Minister in expressing pleasure that throughout this country celebrations are to take place today and tomorrow which will seek to emphasize in the minds of the youth of this country, as well as in members of the older generation, those sacrifices over many long years upon which our freedom, our development and our growth have been built.
Events may to some extent change the particular meaning of words, but any nation would be extremely unappreciative of that past which has given us our present if it did not recall in association with those names all that they have meant in making the country what it is today.

Empire Day
It is appropriate that as we celebrate the wider association of which Canada has formed a part for so many years, and of which we undoubtedly shall continue to form a part throughout the years ahead, we should emphasize the act of citizenship and all that has gone into the making of it.
I think it is a good thing on such occasions to remind our young people that all the tremendous advantages we have today have been bought for us at a very great price. Only a very short distance from us here in this chamber is one of the most beautiful memorials to be found anywhere in the world. Around that memorial chamber are these words:
They are too near to be great but our children shall understand when and how our late was changed and by whose hand.
As we seek to impress upon our new citizens, as well as upon our older citizens, all the significance of this particular day, it would also be well for us to recall how much thousands of young men and women were prepared to give for the freedom they enjoy.
No nation has better reason to be proud of its past than we have; no nation has greater reason to feel confidence about the future, and we shall develop that confidence and we shall assure our own strength and the spirit of our people to the extent that we keep alive and fresh the memories of the great services in peace and war upon which our nation has been built.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, there are days, both in national and in religious calendars, on which we think of events in particular relationship to the community of which we form a part. Today our minds go beyond our own borders, and we think of the association we have with countries in all parts of the world having institutions similar to ours.
I hope and trust that the time will come when that wider association we have within the commonwealth will be extended to all the world; that we may indeed celebrate the world becoming one and the fear of aggression and of war being for ever banished from mankind.
A few moments ago I was thinking of the long heritage which, in common with other nations of this commonwealth association, we have inherited from the past. It is well that the students in our schools-particularly perhaps the new citizens who have come to help build this nation, the foundations of which were laid by two great peoples with many common institutions, though of different tongues-should have an opportunity once in
[Mr. Drew.l
a while of learning to appreciate the democratic freedoms which we have inherited from our forefathers and from the events of the past.
We join with others in this house in expressing our appreciation of the Prime Minister's approach to the governments of the provinces and of their response in making this day notable in the lives of the children attending our educational institutions.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, there is something which always responds when a tribute is paid to our country, to its traditions, its history and its people, as is done on this day in each year.
When I was a mere boy at school it was impressed upon me that the 23rd of May was a day for special thanksgiving that we were born in Canada, or privileged to live in Canada, under the flag and under the traditions of the great empire of which we form a part.	.
I have always been proud of my Canadian birth and heritage, and proud also of our association with the British commonwealth. I believe that the British empire has not yet sung its swan song; it still has a very great task to perform. I look forward to the day when everyone will realize even more strongly that the society of nations making up the united commonwealth known as the commonwealth of the British countries will go forward unimpeded and with an eye single to the task which Divine Providence set for it many many centuries ago.
I am very happy, Mr. Speaker, that we live in a choice land. Canada is a choice land-choice above most lands of the earth; but it can remain choice only in so far as its citizens realize their responsibilities to their land, to their peoples, and to one another. I hope that our boys and girls, our men and women, as they receive their education in the schools, will be imbued with the spirit and responsibility that goes with and is a necessary part of the freedoms which they enjoy in this country.



FLOOD CONDITIONS


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I hope I may take a few moments to make a brief report to hon. members on the visit that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) and I made to Manitoba on Sunday and yesterday. I had hoped to make it at eight o'clock last night. When I got here before eight I was told that before six o'clock some concern had been expressed

about the matter. Coming into the house I found that there were very few members here, and I thought it would be better to wait until there was a somewhat larger attendance. I spoke to you, Mr. Speaker, about it later in the evening, and you informed me that you still had the names of several who had expressed a desire to speak on the motion then being debated. I felt it might not be proper to ask the Chair to interrupt again that interesting debate; consequently I have waited until this moment.
We left here at 10.30 Sunday morning, reaching the Red river valley above Grand Forks in North Dakota about half past three. We then flew downstream all the way to lake Winnipeg, and circled back to land at Stevenson field. The weather was very fine, and from Fort Frances onward we had flown at a relatively low altitude so as to be able to observe everything on the surface.
The extent to which the waters had receded, in comparison with what the Minister of Justice had seen two weeks earlier, was encouraging, though the area still covered with water, particularly north of the boundary, is still very considerable. So far as one can see, there seems to be more water visible than land around the Morris area, and it is obvious that, even under most favourable circumstances, weeks will pass before farm lands are dry, and restoration of order and normal life on the farms will certainly be a big task. Villages and towns in the valley from Emerson to Winnipeg are almost completely flooded, and the task of restoration in that area will be one of considerable magnitude.	.
In greater Winnipeg itself I got the impression that probably ten per cent of the houses were surrounded by water, and that estimate was later confirmed by a report given of an actual house-to-house count which indicated that something over 8,000 houses had been flooded to some substantial extent, and that almost 2,000 have water above the first floor. The count was taken by experienced employees of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and the figure they gave me was exactly 8,233 with basements more or less filled with water, and of these there were 1,968 with water to a greater or lesser depth above the first floor.
On landing we were met by the premier and Brigadier Morton, and we set out at once to visit the flooded areas and the dikes which are still holding. We went first to municipal headquarters at Fort Garry, and then by boat to the beet sugar factory, where from the roof we had a view of a large part of the
Manitoba Flood
flooded area in South Winnipeg, and of the dikes holding back what is called McGillivray lake.
Then we visited the Wildwood dikes and went through part of the flooded area of Wildwood. We went as far as we could with waders, but we could see farther down that in some cases the water was up to half the height of the houses, and quite a number of garages had been overturned and removed from their bases.
After that we drove through the downtown area of Winnipeg, along the causeway on Water street and over the Provencher bridge for a quick tour of the dikes of Norwood and St. Boniface, with a view of the flooded area of St. Vital and the swollen Seine river. In the St. Vital area there is a lake extending from the Red river to the Seine.
We called briefly at the Norwood headquarters, at St. Boniface hospital, which had been evacuated and was used as an adjunct to the headquarters which is fighting the flood, and at the canteen in the Cercle Ouvrier.
Our last visit on Sunday afternoon was to the Scotia street area of North Winnipeg and the Luxton school headquarters. This is almost a marine establishment. There boats are tied up for the convenience of those who wish to go across that area.
We got back to the hotel for dinner at about eight o'clock, and after dinner met quite a large and representative group of citizens and officials who have some of the responsibility for fighting the flood and providing relief. That meeting was followed by a meeting with the mayors and reeves-not of all the municipalities affected by the flood, because there are some which would have found it difficult to get there unless they had been provided with helicopters to take them out and bring them in.
When that meeting was over it was well past midnight Winnipeg time, and we had had a pretty strenuous day. Yesterday morning before leaving Winnipeg the Minister of Justice and I had a brief meeting with nearly all the members of the provincial cabinet, and we then visited the headquarters of the Manitoba flood relief fund and the Red Cross headquarters in. the Winnipeg auditorium. What we saw there was very impressive. The Manitoba flood relief fund is being provided with very convenient quarters in one of the best buildings in the city, without rent. Everyone working there is doing so on a voluntary basis, and of the hundreds working at the Red Cross we were told that only ten were paid employees, and that all the rest of

Manitoba Flood
the work was done by voluntary helpers. It was impressive to see that there seemed to be no lack of clothing for immediate requirements. There were plentiful supplies, and we were told there were plentiful supplies of food and clothing.
The clothing department of the Red Cross there is much like a similar department in a large department store, with the sizes graded down or graded up, according to the end from which one starts.
I was greatly impressed by the organization that had been established for fighting the flood, for evacuating the people whose homes had been flooded, and for providing emergency relief and supplies. I was also impressed by the spirit of courage and determination with which everyone seemed to be facing the formidable problems of rehabilitation.
I heard since I came back to Ottawa that there has been some suggestion as to there being a bad odour. There was none noticeable anywhere. Even the water that was being pumped out into the street looked quite clean. I found nowhere any disagreeable odours, and nowhere any people who were not perfectly clean, eager, in good spirit, and confident of the future.
I think at this point I might read to the house the messages I left with the premier and with Brigadier Morton and Mr. H. W. Manning, chairman of the Manitoba flood relief fund. The letter to the premier is as follows:
Hon. Douglas L. Campbell.
Premier of Manitoba.
Before I leave Winnipeg, I should like to ask you to convey to the mayors and reeves and the municipal authorities in the flooded areas, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in the province, the city and municipal police, the members of other governmental and municipal agencies, the Red Cross and hundreds of other voluntary organizations, and the citizens of the Red river valley generally the expression of my deep admiration of the splendid way the whole population has organized and carried on the fight against the flood.
The long hours of hard work and sheer endurance by thousands of voluntary workers on the dikes and behind the dikes have captured the imagination of our entire country. I know I speak for all Canadians when I ask you to say we are hoping for a speedy end to this time of trial, and that not only Canadians but the people of other friendly countries are translating their sympathy into practical terms to help, both in immediate flood relief and in the earliest possible restoration of normal home life to the families affected by the disaster.
To Brigadier Morton, with whom everyone I came in contact with seemed to be highly delighted, and concerning whom they expressed great admiration, I wrote as follows:
Having seen with my own eyes something of the magnificent and untiring effort being put forth by

all three defence services under your direction in fighting the Red river flood and assisting in emergency relief, I feel the service you are rendering to all levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal, merits the highest praise. I should be grateful if you would accept for yourself and convey to the officers and men under your command, this expression of my warm appreciation.
To Mr. H. W. Manning, chairman of the Manitoba flood relief fund, I wrote:
Before leaving Winnipeg I wish to express to you and all those from end to end of Canada who are working so hard to make a success of the campaign for the Manitoba flood relief fund, the satisfaction felt by millions of our fellow citizens that your fund provides a sure and effective way to give the practical help they would like to give to those families in the Red river valley whose homes have been devastated by the floods.
Once the waters recede, we all want to see the unfortunate victims of the disaster return to real homes as quickly as possible, and the Manitoba flood relief fund will be available to help, in ways no other agency is equipped to do, those driven from their houses to restore genuine family homes.
The need of the thousands of families in city and country who have lost so many of the prized personal possessions which make a home of a house has touched the hearts of all Canadians, and your fund gives all the opportunity to help which they will welcome.
As hon. members may have heard, I also met the press. I do not intend to enter into any controversy over the conflicting stories that have been published in the various newspapers about my interview. For instance, there are the reports that appeared in two Winnipeg newspapers, which have probably arrived in town by this time. In some reports things have been left out, and in other reports some things have been emphasized. Hon. members will also note that there are some inaccuracies that would appear to make necessary a clarification of the position of the federal government in relation to the disaster which has befallen the people of the Red river valley in Manitoba. As to our position I do not see how I can improve on what I said right here in this place on April 28, as reported in Hansard at page 1981. I refer to the following words:
We shall endeavour to ascertain what the situation is, and then determine what action, if any, should be taken. Hon. members can be assured that it is the desire of the government to treat every part of the country in the same way. Should there ever be in any part of the country the sort of disaster there was in the Fraser river district, the people of that section would be entitled to expect that they would be treated in the same way as the residents of the Fraser river valley were treated.
As a matter of fact I informed hon. members the other day that a commission had been set up to ascertain the nature and the extent of the disaster so that accurate data would be available to determine what grant should be made in that respect. The federal

grant to Manitoba will be based on the facts and on the same principles and considerations which applied to the Fraser valley.
I should like to refer to the Ottawa Evening Citizen, which contains a report which seems to have caused some commotion here in the house. I was asked a question by one of the newspapermen at this press conference, and I shall quote from the article which was published yesterday, as follows:
I asked him what I think was a fair question-after seeing the troubles of these Manitoba people in the Red river valley and here in the city. I said that the people in the flood areas were very, very concerned to know-in a general way-what federal aid might be expected.
I do not remember the words "in a general way". My recollection is that I was asked to indicate what amount the federal government would contribute toward the relief of the disaster. I said that I could not add anything to what I had said in the house, that a commission had been appointed and when the commission made its report we would then discuss with the government of Manitoba the amount of the grant that would be made available on the same principles and considerations as had been followed in the Fraser valley matter.
I was asked a direct question by one newspaperman-and I refer now to the Winnipeg Tribune-as to what direct federal aid was forthcoming for the "little man" whose possessions had been lost in the flood. I replied, "Directly, none." I said that our dealings were going to be with the Manitoba government, just as in the case of the Fraser river flood they were with the government of British Columbia.
It would seem that there are some who would rather deal with us than with the government of Manitoba, but that is a desire to which I cannot give effect. The position I took was that our dealings would be with the government of the province of Manitoba, and that they in turn would deal with the municipalities and individuals as they thought might befit their responsibilities in the premises. The federal government gave no direct aid to the people of the Fraser valley; our dealings were all with the government of British Columbia. In the Red river flood matters our dealings will be with the government of Manitoba.
It would be entirely wrong for me to say how the authorities of Manitoba, provincial or municipal, should discharge their responsibilities. I am advised that the government of Manitoba has indicated that it proposes to provide assistance for rehabilitation of families in cases of need. We can all understand and sympathize deeply with the anxiety of families whose homes have been devastated by the 55946-174
Manitoba Flood
flood waters, particularly those who have few resources with which to restore their homes. But I am convinced that the co-operative efforts of governments at all levels with the voluntary agencies, and particularly the Manitoba flood relief fund, will ensure help to all those who need help and who in the true Canadian spirit are ready to help themselves.
I am sure that that is true of all the people I saw in the Manitoba area. I said to them that I was much impressed by the fact that this disaster had not dampened their western spirit of enterprise, and that I was convinced that, great as was this disaster, it was not going to mean any permanent set-back in the development of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba.
Hon. members will recall that this commission was to deal only with the extent and the nature of the damages, and the cost of the measures taken to fight the flood and the emergency precautions to guard against recurring floods. However, there will have to be some permanent measures taken. General McNaughton, who is a member of the international joint commission, accompanied me, along with two engineers, one from public works and one from the commission. We were joined in Winnipeg by Mr. George Spence. Perhaps I might conclude by reading to the house the statement General McNaughton read before we left Winnipeg, which was as follows:
With my colleague on the international joint commission I have today flown over the Red river valley and the city of Winnipeg and have examined both the inroads of the water and the protective measures which have been taken. This watershed has been the subject of study by the engineering boards of the international joint commission for seme time, and I am here to learn the details of what additional information will be required to prepare a definite plan of flood control. The minister of external affairs of Canada has directed that the work of preparing such a plan be expedited by all possible means, and authorities in the United States agree that this should be done, so there is now no obstacle to the immediate prosecution of the necessary study.
Of the utmost significance is the fact that means exist, through the international joint commission, of co-ordinating plans over the entire river system from its source in the United States to its mouth at lake Winnipeg. Control of the river must be studied by a combination of measures co-ordinated with those in progress south of the border. Various means have been suggested from time to time by qualified engineers to suit local or regional conditions-a canal or floodway around Winnipeg, permanent dikes and pumping stations capable of being raised in case of need, and the diversion of certain rivers into other channels. Many of these projects are sound from an engineering standpoint, but no single solution will meet all the requirements.
A comprehensive survey must be started at once. Before I left Ottawa, the Minister of National Defence had arranged for the Royal Canadian Air Force to take progressive aerial-photographic surveys of the area as the flood recedes, and I am gratified to learn that the Manitoba government has

Manitoba Flood
already taken photographs at the peak of the flood. Existing agencies in this area are adequate to supervise topographical surveys, hydrometric studies and soil drilling.
The work should move without delay into the planning stage. For this purpose a director or chief engineer must be provided with adequate staff to undertake the design and costing of the various engineering works. Such an office, on a full-time basis, would co-ordinate the plans already proposed by local authorities and ensure that they fit into an over-all plan that would be adequate for the whole river system.
I understand that some publicity has been given to the fact that certain control measures, such as the creation of reservoirs or water-storage basins, have been discarded as impractical.
I think from what I saw that it would be impractical. It is a great plain, and there is no place where water can be stored unless you are able to make a hole in the plain. The water cannot otherwise be stored in large volume. From the city of Winnipeg to lake Winnipeg the Red river seems to be capable of carrying in the channel all the water that comes through. There was some flooding there, but not to any alarming degree. From south of the border to Winnipeg the channel of the river is not capable of carrying all the water when all the affluents are discharging their flood streams simultaneously. Fortunately that does not happen very often, but it has happened now at least three times in the last century and a half. General McNaughton goes on to point out that the impracticability of large reservoirs does not mean that there is no solution to the problem. Then he says:
I have no doubt that a solution can be found based on a combination of measures. The nature of such measures must be determined by a thorough survey and study and must be co-ordinated with plans in the United States. The international joint commission is going ahead at once with its work on the broad plan.
I think I should add that I was able to say to the people I met in Winnipeg that there are always silver linings to these dark clouds, as demonstrated by the extent to which the feeling of common humanity exists not only throughout the length and breadth of our own country but also in many other countries.
I should like to table a message I have received, and my reply thereto, from the government of Greece. I should like to confirm the information published in the Ottawa Citizen this morning, that the international executive board of the A.F. of L. carpenters and joiners union has made a subscription of $50,000 to the Manitoba flood relief fund. The government of the United Kingdom has been most anxious to do something at once. I understand that the details are being arranged with the authorities in Winnipeg, and that an

announcement tomorrow in that regard is expected to be made in the United Kingdom House of Commons.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I know that every member of the house is most anxious that it should be known in Winnipeg, in the southern part of Manitoba affected, and in Rimouski and Cabano, which suffered disasters during the same period, that there is in the house no division of opinion on the question that their problems should be regarded as the problems of all Canadians. * I am sure the government may count on the wholehearted support of all members in everything that can be done to meet the most unusual situations which have developed in these widely separated parts of the country.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has spoken of the situation in Manitoba, and I shall direct my remarks to it. The flood is the greatest disaster of its kind that has occurred in any settled community in Canada in the history of our country. It would be well for us to keep the problem in that perspective. It is not only the fact that there are so many homes in the city of Winnipeg and its suburbs affected by the flood, but also the fact that over a large area, from Winnipeg south to the border, there are farms which will certainly produce no crops this year, farms on which all the livestock have been lost, on which all the stored feed and a great part of the equipment have been destroyed; farms on which houses and other buildings are damaged to an extent that will be apparent only when the waters have receded and they can be examined; until then it will be difficult to assess the extent of the disaster. The damage to foundations and walls of buildings and furniture cannot be measured while the water is still there.
One thing which undoubtedly will be most helpful in maintaining the morale of all those affected is the knowledge that there have been such spontaneous expressions of sympathy and offers of practical assistance from every part of Canada in meeting the loss that has been incurred. One thing which undoubtedly emerges from what has taken place is the remarkable way in which personnel having to do with voluntary help has achieved so much without any preliminary training to undertake that particular task. The remarkable adaptability of our people is made evident by the fact that those who had no previous instruction were able to take their part in meeting such an unusual and unexpected threat.

There is also the heart-warming fact to which the Prime Minister has referred, the striking evidence that has been given of the extent to which we are one family community, and of the extent to which the difficulties that may be encountered by Canadians in any one part of the country are shared as the personal responsibility of Canadians in every other part. It is a source of deep satisfaction to every one of us, as well as to those who will benefit from the activities of the Manitoba flood relief fund, that this organization should be receiving such truly remarkable support. It is a reminder of the way in which people gave their time and their efforts during the years of the war to see people putting their efforts into so many different activities which may in some way help those who are not personally known, but with whom under circumstances of the kind there is a close and intimate bond. Every Canadian will hope that the weather will be advantageous to a continuing recession of the flood waters, and every Canadian will certainly want to see the government of Canada take its full part in assisting in whatever way it can.
Undoubtedly it will help to ease the concern of many people if an announcement is made, at as early a day as possible, as to what is actually going to be done. One can only attempt to put oneself in the position of those who have built their houses, created the intimate surroundings in which their families are being brought up, developed their farms or gardens, and have seen all that destroyed. As they look into the future they will of necessity ask themselves what resources they will have to enable them to rebuild what has been destroyed. Some will be in a more fortunate position than others. I recognize, as I know every hon. member in this house recognizes, the tremendous difficulties involved in dealing with a problem on this scale, a problem which has not yet taken its final form. I feel sure, however, that all the members of this house will wish that, as soon as possible and with as much certainty as possible, those who now have to plan for the future may know exactly how they will be able to do it.
There are many lessons to be learned from what has taken place. Those lessons can be discussed at another time. Today I simply join with all others in this house in expressing admiration of the magnificent example of the people of Manitoba, both in the city of Winnipeg and throughout the whole countryside, and in praying that Providence may soon lower the waters so that the people may begin to rebuild their property.
55946-174J
Manitoba Flood


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government expects to be able to bring in a supplementary estimate during this session with respect to this situation. I have in mind the fact that that is what was done in 1948 with respect to the Fraser valley situation. I realize that the Shaw-Carswell commission may be delayed in making its report, but I hope there will at least be a preliminary item in the supplementary estimates before the end of this session.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The commissioners
attended this meeting with representative officials and citizens. It was strongly impressed upon us all that it was desirable to make as accurate an estimate as could be made, but to make it as expeditiously as possible, for the very reasons mentioned by the leader of the opposition.
With respect to the provision of a supplementary estimate at this time, I can assure the hon. gentleman that all measures will be proposed to parliament that may be required to avoid any delay in taking necessary action.


Mr. Ralph Maybank (Winnipeg South Centre):: I rise on a question of privilege, in connection with a newspaper article dealing with this same subject. There is a report in the Ottawa Evening Citizen to which I wish to refer. Before dealing with this article, if I may be permitted, I should like, as one of the members from the city of Winnipeg, to express my own thanks and the thanks of the people of the city of Winnipeg, as well as those of the people of the Red river valley, to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) for his prompt agreement with the sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister (Mr St. Laurent). I feel that I am justified in expressing the same thanks to every member of this house for the sympathy that has been extended by all of them to the affected people. It is only natural, perhaps, that I should take pride and pleasure in the references of a laudatory nature that have been made to the affected people. I do take that pride, and I desire as emphatically as possible to thank all members, particularly the leader of the opposition, for the way in which this matter has been dealt with so far.
I wish now to refer to a report which appeared in the Ottawa Evening Citizen of May 22, concerning the Prime Minister's trip. It makes reference to the press meeting, and Mr. Ross Munro says this with reference to attendance at that meeting:
He had come from a Liberal party reception downstairs in the hotel and was returning to it.

Manitoba Flood
Mr. Speaker, I know whereof I speak when I say that there was no such reception. There was no party reception; there was nothing whatever political in connection with the visit of the Prime Minister. The so-called reception was partly arranged by me and partly by Premier Campbell, in the belief that it would be well if certain leaders in connection with flood control, the mayors and reeves, could all be brought together for the purpose of talking with each other and speaking with the Prime Minister. Premier Campbell called some of these people and I called some. Those whom I called were such persons as the president of the Manitoba relief fund, the mayors and reeves, some engineers; and they were the people who were at that meeting. There were about fifty altogether. There were two men interested in flood control who had been either sent there from Washington or who came of their own volition. I did not even know the political complexion of more than twenty-five per cent of the fifty people who were present.
The leader of the Conservative party in Manitoba, Mr. Errick Willis, was there. Mr. McLenaghen, the attorney general, who is from the Conservative side of the coalition in Manitoba, I think was there, but I will not say for certain. I wish to assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the house that that is the only sort of meeting that there was in Winnipeg at that time.
This flood matter in Winnipeg and in Manitoba is far too important for any person to use it for political purposes. I am confident that there is no member in this house- and at the moment I happen to be looking at those of the parties of which I am not a member

who would descend to making any such use of this so tragic situation. In assuring people as I do on my honour of the nature of the meeting that was held, I just wish to close my remarks to the house this afternoon in the same strain as I opened them, by impressing on hon. members the fact that I know there is no person within the sound of my voice who would make political use of this tragic situation; and second, again to express with deep sincerity my thanks and the thanks of the people of Winnipeg and of the Red river valley for the unanimity of the sympathy that we have already seen exhibited in this chamber.


Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I
should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), and I realize that the question may be difficult to answer. It is this. Has he any idea as to when a report might be expected from the commission? I ask that question for this reason. There is a variation in the wording of the two orders
[Mr. Maybank.l
in council, the one for the Fraser river valley disaster and for this one. As has been pointed out by the previous speaker and others, this is a much greater disaster than the Fraser valley one. The matter of the Fraser valley disaster was first raised in this House of Commons, and rightfully so, by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) on May 28, 1948, and there was extremely quick action. The then prime minister on June 9 of that year announced in this house a grant, without many strings attached to it either, of $5 million. At that time the hon. member said that was just a token grant. I am happy now that he is quite pleased with the final settlement.
I point this fact out because, as my leader has said, there is great concern amongst these many thousands of people as to whether they will have anything with which to rehabilitate themselves in certain categories. The sooner, therefore, that they may be given a lead from the government, the better. I am pointing out that already there was far greater action at this stage in connection with the Fraser valley flood, which was not as great as this one, having regard to what has happened. I realize that it may be difficult for the Prime Minister to say when he may expect a report from this commission. Then I want to know whether there has been a request for an interim grant to the provincial government, if they cannot make a definite report for some length of time; because some encouragement should be given to these people by telling them on what basis they will be assisted. It will be of great help if that can be done.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: To answer the last question first, I have no knowledge of any request for an interim grant having been made. In the second place, I was asked in this news conference if any time limit had been set upon the work of these commissioners in preparing their report. I made the answer

and it is the only answer that I can make now-that we tried to choose people upon whom we did not have to put a time limit; that we thought they appreciated the situation and the conditions as well as anybody else; and that I was sure they would continue the work they had already started on Sunday and proceed with it just as expeditiously as possible. But it will be some time before there can be anything even approximate with respect to the amount of damage done. I am told that there are some of these houses which will not have been damaged otherwise than made wet and probably the plaster injured inside, but from

which the outer sheathing will have to be removed in order to allow the insulation either to be replaced or to dry out.


James Arthur Ross: That is true; a good
many.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: And then it will not be
possible to make even an approximate estimate of the amount of household effects lost until people are able to get back. The mayor of Winnipeg told me that they were fortunate in having had no increase in disease, and no epidemic of any kind. He said that they were going to be extremely careful to see that the people did not go back too soon and that they did not do anything that might occasion an epidemic.


Mr. L. A. Mutch (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, when the members of this house had an opportunity about a week ago to say a word or two about the flood which has so gravely affected my province, my city and my riding, I had no opportunity to say anything because at that time I was there. If the house will permit me, representing a constituency which contains, I should think, slightly more than half of the abandoned homes in the flooded area, I should like to say a word or two in connection with the statement made today.
I spent eleven days there, three at one time and eight at another. I did not fly over the area. I did not see the drama angle of it. I walked over it the first time. I travelled by boat and high-wheeled truck through most of the streets in that area on my second trip, and I am proud to report to the house my complete agreement with everything that has been said with respect to the spirit, the cooperativeness and self-help of the people in that constituency. I am so greatly impressed with this that I have all the more burning desire to see to it that that type of self-help and co-operativeness should be rewarded by assistance from government at all levels. For that reason I have had a great deal of [DOT]pleasure listening to the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), and the leaders of the other parties. I want to say to the house that if you want an appreciation of what has happened, you cannot describe a catastrophe of this sort by telling how far the water is up or down the wall, how many bridges are washed out or what the damage is to streets and to public utilities generally. If you want to realize what is involved, you should stand at the end of a shuttle service when people are being removed from their homes with a few sandwiches and the clothes they can carry. You need to watch them as
Manitoba Flood
they are being sorted out and are being sent to the places to which they are going, in order to realize the magnitude of their losses.
The Prime Minister said that there are some 1,900 houses with water up to-


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Over the first floor.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Yes, over the first floor. I do not know who counted them, but I am reasonably certain they did not get outside south Winnipeg in making the count. I would imagine that the figures came from a group whose tendency in reporting has been at all times, I think, to minimize the extent of the damage. At any rate, I know where there are two or three hundred where it is well over the second floor, and I have seen a few where it was well up on the roof. I have been driven in a motorboat over the clotheslines in the backyards of one street: in that group there were three hundred in all with water close to the roof. There are other groups where I have looked through windows and watched china cabinets floating upside down and seen chesterfields bobbing up against the upper front windows. When you interpret that in terms of what it means to homes and home-making, all of the things which this government, the province of Manitoba and the municipalities can do can only fall far short of the real requirements, if we are to restore these homes. The number has been given at 13,500 homes-I doubt if it is an exaggeration-which are to some extent flood damaged in the rural, urban and suburban area. I will not dispute it. If one can think of it in terms of that many homes then the response to the appeal for relief will be as generous as Canadians know how to make it, and this house would not only support this government wholeheartedly but would push it, if it were necessary, into the kind of generosity which has been indicated today this house is willing to give.
I have not spoken demandingly before because I never could see there was any sense in kicking people whose help you need. There are many whose estimates with respect to flood damage have been reasoned and sound; but there are others, who when they talk in terms of $10,000 think they are speaking of high finance.


James Arthur Ross: Hear, hear.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: My hon. friend knows some of them as well I do. We need a general public movement to bring about realization that this tragedy has not been overestimated. On the other hand, it is good to hear that it is not being underestimated by the authorities who propose to deal with it.
I think I know every street and almost every house in most of flooded south Winnipeg.

Manitoba Flood
If I had not walked them in the last fifteen years I would not be here today. Of all the stories that I have read I have only seen one that overestimated the damage in the country. I believe that most of them have underestimated it. I know that our people will be grateful now that we seem to be moving forward to give the help that this house, this afternoon, through the leaders of the different parties has indicated this parliament wishes us to give.


Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief, but I should like to say a word or two on this subject. I happen to represent the Fraser Valley riding which was flooded in 1948. Probably from personal experience I know as much about flooding as others. My own farm was flooded at that time. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I think I speak for every hon. member-


An hon. Member:: Are you sure?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I think I do. I have confidence that every member of parliament will see that justice is done to Manitoba.
In 1948 I had the privilege of taking the present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) around the Fraser valley flood. He was taken [DOT]around in the air, of course. We flew over it; but we also went on foot, in boat and by motorcar. The present Prime Minister of Canada reported back to his prime minister, Mr. Mackenzie King, at that time. With the unanimous approval of the members of all parties in the house justice and kindness were done to the people of the Fraser river valley and we appreciated it.
The present Prime Minister has intimated that a similar procedure may be adopted in connection with the Manitoba floods. If hon. members will check back Hansard they will see that I, as the representative of Fraser Valley, which unfortunately was the district flooded out in British Columbia, openly water receded. Nobody could, engineer or admitted that we could not estimate the damage that had been done until the layman.
The prime minister of the day, on the advice of his minister, at that time intimated that justice would be done to us, and it was done. I would particularly like to say on behalf of the people of my riding that not only did the government of Canada treat us fairly, but the people, through their private donations, treated us in the most generous manner. In the Fraser river valley we shall never forget it. We are not too sure about this year. The water is very much the same as it was in 1948. I certainly hope that the people in my riding, through the Red Cross and otherwise, will respond to the plight of the people of Manitoba, as the people of

Canada and of parts of the United States responded to us in 1948. I can assure the Prime Minister that, in my opinion, he will have the support of every member of this House of Commons in seeing that Manitoba is treated as fairly as we were treated in the Fraser river valley in British Columbia.



COMMITTEE TO RECEIVE CONTRIBUTIONS TO MANITOBA FLOOD RELIEF FUND

Mr. W. G. Weir (Porlage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the indulgence of the house on a matter of privilege. Incidentally, it was not expected, so far as I am concerned, that the discussion would have continued so long or take the trend that it has. Nevertheless I think it is helpful and encouraging, and will be greatly appreciated by the people of Manitoba, particularly by those who are in such difficult circumstances at the present time.
With the indulgence of the house I should like to make an announcement in respect of flood relief in Manitoba. The announcement is as follows: the people of the province of Manitoba, and particularly those of the towns and farms along the Red river from the United States boundary to lake Winnipeg, and in the municipalities adjacent to the city of Winnipeg, as well as the city itself, are experiencing at the present time one of the worst economic disasters that have ever occurred in any part of Canada.
The extent of the damage, and the loss in property and personal effects caused by the flooding waters of the Red river, may never be properly assessed or recovered.
That government assistance will be needed on a huge scale there is no doubt. Already there have come generous offers of assistance from other provinces, and from sources outside Canada, but more will be needed. With the object of assisting in the rehabilitation of those whose homes and properties have been destroyed, a voluntary flood relief fund has been established. It is known as the Manitoba flood relief fund. The chairman of the fund is Mr. H. W. Manning, president of the Great West Life Assurance Company, Winnipeg. The objective is to raise $10 million.
Believing that there are many members of the Senate, the House of Commons, the press gallery, the staffs of the Senate and the House of Commons, as well as other Ottawa people who would like to contribute to this fund, representatives from Manitoba have organized a committee which will be prepared to accept contributions to this fund. The personnel of the committee is as follows:	W. G.
Weir, House of Commons; J. Arthur Ross, House of Commons; Stanley H. Knowles, House of Commons; Hon. A. L. Beaubien, the

Senate; Chester A. Bloom, press gallery; John Bird, press gallery; L. Clare Moyer, staff of the Senate; H. Crossley Sherwood, staff of the House of Commons. Any member of this committee will accept contributions and arrange to issue the proper receipt. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that a similar announcement is being made in the Senate this afternoon.
I thank the house for its courtesy in allowing this announcement to be made at this time.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


Mr. James Sinclair (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last, the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch) asked the Minister of Finance whether he would table the interim report on the flood situation in the Fraser valley, dated June 13, 1948. I now beg leave to table two copies of the interim report.



INQUIRY AS TO FURTHER REPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance if there are any other reports with respect to the Fraser valley situation other than the one he tabled today for the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch). If so, could such reports be tabled?


James Sinclair: I am not
aware of any others, and I made inquiries. There is of course the report of the diking commission, but this was an interim report of the rehabilitation commission. However, I shall make further inquiries.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I understood it was with respect to rehabilitation. Was there to be a final report?


James Sinclair: I shall have to look it up. It is two years since it happened.



RED RIVER VALLEY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs further to the question asked by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) on May 17. When did the international joint commission set up this board of engineers to make a report about that condition, namely, Red river flooding? When he has that information I
Feed Grains
would ask him to give the names of the engineers comprising the board. The last report was on January 12, 1948. With two severe floods occurring since then, that is not a very satisfactory state of affairs.


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The hon. member is supposed to put a question and not make a speech. I can easily get the information for him, but I should say at once that it is not correct to imply that no action has been taken since 1948, or any other date. As a matter of fact four interim reports have been made since. I shall get the information for the hon. member.


Mr. Graydon:: They did not do much about the floods, then.



FEED GRAINS


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, some weeks ago I asked the following question, which was answered yesterday at page 2695 of Hansard, as follows:
1.	How many bushels of (a) feed oats; (b) feed barley, were sold by the wheat board to feed merchants, dealers or brokerage houses in each of the months beginning in December, 1949, and to date?
2.	What was the average price received for each of said grains in each of said months?
The answer I received was as follows:
1.	It is not the policy of the Canadian wheat board to divulge its sales position within the crop year in which it is operating.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
Really, that last answer was surplusage. I rise to make strong objection to the type of answers hon. members in this House of Commons are receiving in respect of so many matters concerning which parliament is entitled to information.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that this is not the time to raise a grievance. He has made a short statement, but a general discussion cannot be allowed at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, I rise to a question of privilege affecting every member of the House of Commons who should be entitled to have information rather than have it hidden from him.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has risen to what he has described as a question of privilege, in which he has objected to the answers given to certain questions. Now he wishes to generalize. I do not think it is proper to do so at the present time.

Tariff Board Act TARIFF BOARD ACT



AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO APPEALS UNDER OTHER ACTS

Hon. Alphonse Fournier (for ihe Minisier of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 236, to amend the Tariff Board Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the first time?


Alphonse Fournier: that the bill be read the first time.


Gordon Graydon: After an explanation.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


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


Mr. Casselman:: Explain.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I might inform the house that the explanation should have come on the motion for leave to introduce the bill, not on the motion for first reading.


Arza Clair Casselman: We asked for it then.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not permissible to debate the motion for first reading.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 223, for the relief of Marilyn Ruth Cohen Novak.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 224, for the relief of Mary Elizabeth Bernatchez Russell.-Mr. Winkler.	'
Bill No. 225, for the relief of Winnifred Evelyn Thompson Clift.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 226, for the relief of Maida Maria Howard Martin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 227, for the relief of June Hedy Leshynska Thompson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 228, for the relief of Rosemary Smalley Carrier.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 229, for the relief of William Arthur Goodson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 230, for the relief of Dorothy Melbourne Davis Wand.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 231, for the relief of Frank Lear Rogers.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 232, for the relief of Roma Leduc. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 233, for the relief of Edna Rosaline Casavant Dufresne.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 234, for the relief of Leo Berger. -Mr. Winkler.

[Stage Direction]
2RS0NS LISTED IN NOTEBOOK OF KLAUS FUCHS
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister

of Justice, of which I have sent him notice. Has there been any examination or reexamination of the loyalty of any of the 150 persons then resident in Canada listed in the notebook found as a result of the espionage investigations of 1945 and 1946, since the trial of Dr. Fuchs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is there any reason why that question could not be placed on the order paper? Is there any urgency? I think it should appear on the order paper.


Brooke Claxton: Something like it is on the order paper now.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Might I comment upon that? The reason I asked the question at this time orally rather than through the order paper is that the trial of Dr. Fuchs disclosed that there were persons-there was one name mentioned -engaged in espionage. I felt that for that reason, and in view of certain disclosures in committee recently, there is urgency in the matter.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend has correctly stated, he gave me notice of this question last week. I then telephoned to him suggesting that it was one dealing with security, and that before answering I should like to discuss the question with the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who was then absent from Ottawa. I myself was also absent from the city over the week end. Upon getting back to Ottawa I noticed that my hon. friend had placed two questions on Votes and Proceedings dealing with the same subject matter which, I assume, supersede the one he is now asking.
For that reason I should like to take his present question as notice, and bring down the answers to the three of them tomorrow, because they will have to be integrated with one another.



COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: I should like to ask a question of the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. Apparently the commonwealth conference held at Sydney to consider ways and means of helping resist communism in southeast Asia was terminated last Friday or Saturday. Could the minister give the house a statement concerning the results of that conference?


Brooke Claxton: I shall be very

Inquiries of the Ministry
glad to do so, as soon as the information is agreed to here and whether there is any available. It is not fully in yet; when it is possibility of having it held off until an in, I shall be glad to make a statement. investigation has been made?



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs in reference to the covenant on human rights and fundamental freedoms that is now to be submitted to the economic and social council. That body will meet in Geneva on July 3, after which this covenant will be subject to ratification by the various parliaments composing the members of the United Nations.
Is it the intention of the government of Canada to set up any committee of the House of Commons to consider this draft covenant and to make such recommendations for the use of the Canadian representative who will appear on the economic and social council as parliament may deem proper and necessary?


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, it will be recalled that the universal declaration on human rights was approved by the general assembly of the United Nations on December 10, 1948, by forty-eight votes in favour to none against, with nineteen abstaining, and with the Canadian vote in favour. My understanding is that the covenant to which the hon. member refers, generally speaking, will be based upon the declaration of human rights. That has been already the subject matter of a wide discussion in the house and elsewhere, and consequently it does not seem that it would be useful at this time to set up a committee to go into the covenant.



NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. This afternoon we received information by wire from Vancouver to the effect that the national harbours board and other bodies owning or controlling wharfage are planning to put on an additional berthing charge to commence next week and to apply to all docks in Vancouver and New Westminster harbours. Can the minister state whether that additional charge has been 55946-175


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: I did not get the hon. member's question until shortly before coming into the house and so was not able to get all the information I would require to answer the question fully. I shall deal with the question as generally as I can. I received similar telegrams, as did the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sinclair) and other members from the west coast, complaining about the charge. A berthage charge already exists for vessels that are idle in the ports of New Westminster and Vancouver, but that charge is being extended to working vessels. The charge has been authorized by the British Columbia wharf operators association which is made up of the owners and operators of wharves. Because of financial requirements and other reasons that association, of which the national harbours board and Canadian National Railways are members, decided to put on this new berthing charge effective June 1.
This is a charge which exists in other ports and the association decided that it needed the additional revenue. The national harbours board has been informed that the imposts in Vancouver and New Westminster are far lower than those in the Pacific coast ports south of the border. The national harbours board is following the decision of the British Columbia wharf association. For the information of the house there are some 47 or 48 private wharves in Vancouver, of which seven or eight are operated by the national harbours board.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister make a further investigation into this increased charge?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think I need make any further investigation. I said I could give a general statement and that is what I have given. The national harbours board has decided to follow the decision of the British Columbia wharf association and the imposts will go into effect on June 1.



CUSTOMS TARIFF


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: When we were discussing the tariff items on May 17 I asked the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance if it would be possible to secure a list of the 2,500 United States items on which the tariff had been reduced and at that time the parliamentary

Senate Reform
assistant said that the list was available to any hon. member who wanted it. I wonder when I shall be able to get that list?


James Sinclair: Within the next day or two.


Alphonse Fournier: that the house go into committee of supply.



SENATE REFORM

George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, availing myself of the opportunity which is presented by this motion, I wish to introduce a subject which I believe does require definite consideration. For three-quarters of a century there has been considerable discussion in the House of Commons, in the other branch of our Canadian parliament and among people generally of the need for Senate reform. As in most .other democratic countries, our constitution provides for two legislative bodies with very similar functions except for the fact that the upper house may not initiate any measures calling for the expenditure of public money.
The historic reasons for having two branches of parliament are familiar to every student of government. For centuries it has been generally agreed that it is wise to have an upper chamber which can exercise proper restraint over hasty and ill-considered legislation and which will also to some extent be removed from the direct effects of sudden swings of sentiment which might carry any democratic government too rapidly away from its charted course.
In nations with a federal constitution the second chamber has a special purpose, which was very much in the minds of those who adopted the resolutions passed at Quebec in 1864, calling for a non-elective upper house in Canada. It is to provide a parliamentary body under which the constitutional rights of the provinces will be protected by a parliamentary body which by the method of its choice is designed to preserve the particular interest of all provincial and other minorities.
Like the weather, the Canadian Senate has been a constant subject of discussion for a very long time without anybody doing much about it. As far back as the session of 1886 a motion was presented to the House of Commons which read in part:
That appropriate steps should be taken to secure such amendments of the British North America Act as to make the Senate directly responsible to the people of the several provinces of the dominion.

That motion was defeated. Since then no serious attempt has been made to give effective consideration to the reorganization of the Senate, although from time to time proposals have been made for its abolition.
I believe that a substantial majority of the members of this house would not entertain the idea of a one-chamber parliament for Canada. I am sure that the most vigorous objection to any such suggestion would come from the provincial legislatures at a time when the upper house assumes greater importance than ever before as the custodian of provincial rights, now that the Supreme Court of Canada is to be the court of last resort for all legal proceedings in this country including the determination of constitutional issues.
It is particularly significant that during the past few weeks several careful and constructive speeches have been made by members of the Senate emphasizing the need for reform of that branch of our parliamentary system, if it is to fulfil the purpose for which it was created.
The contention of several of those who have spoken in the Senate chamber and outside can be summed up in the words used by the mover of the resolution to which I have already referred, when he said to the House of Commons in 1886:
The purpose which a second chamber was intended to serve in our parliamentary system has not been secured by the Senate as it is now constituted.
The debate on that motion, which Sir John Macdonald opposed and Sir Wilfrid Laurier supported, indicated fairly general agreement with the proposition contained in the words which I have quoted.	The motion was
defeated but the differences of opinion, expressed by the members who spoke, related to procedure rather than to purpose.
Over the years, criticism has been directed to the Senate, both by those who thought it interfered too much with the decisions of the House of Commons and by those who thought that it exercised too little independent judgment of its own. This point was covered by Sir John Macdonald when he introduced a motion in the house of assembly asking for approval of the resolutions adopted at the Quebec conference of 1864. These were his words:
There would be no use of an upper house if it did not exercise, when it thought proper, the right of opposing or amending or postponing the legislation of the lower house. It would be of no value whatever were it a mere chamber for registering the decrees of the lower house. It must be an independent house having a free action of its own, for it is only valuable as being a regulating body, calmly considering the legislation initiated by the popular branch, and preventing any hasty or ill-considered legislation which may come from that

body, but it will never set itself in opposition against the deliberate and understood wishes of the people.
Criticism of the Senate has been on two main grounds, one that it unreasonably opposed legislation passed by the House of Commons, and the other that it proposed and initiated nothing. It is not my intention to deal with the validity of either of these criticisms. An examination of Hansard and of reported public speeches does, however, indicate the extent to which criticism has ranged, from the contention on the one hand that the Senate unreasonably obstructed legislation, and on the other hand that it arrives at no independent decisions of its own, and has in fact become "a mere chamber for registering the decrees of the lower house." Whatever justification there may be for criticism on either of these grounds, or for other reasons so often put forward in parliament and outside, we cannot safely disregard the fact that there is widespread criticism of the present constitution of the Senate of Canada. There is a growing demand from within the Senate itself, as well as outside, for reforms which will make the upper house an effective part of a bicameral parliamentary system attuned to the needs of a vigorous and expanding democracy, while at the same time preserving and strengthening those safeguards of our federal constitution which provided one of the primary reasons for creating the upper house.
Quite apart from these reasons of particular historic interest to Canadians, there is a generally accepted reason for the existence of a second chamber, which was very well stated by Sir Clifford Sifton after some twenty years' service in the House of Commons. He said:
No nation should be under unchecked, singlechamber government. According to my experience, the will of the people is very often better expressed after a check and after a period of searching and critical discussion which generally arises from such a check, than it is in the first instance.
These are the words of a man with considerable experience in the public affairs of Canada. There is, however, another reason of special significance today why we should recognize the importance of an upper house which conforms to the needs of our own parliamentary system. In explaining the decision of the Quebec conference of 1864 to constitute an appointed upper house, the Hon. Mr. Campbell said this:
The main reason was to give each of the provinces adequate security for the protection of its local interests, a protection which it was feared might not be found in a house where the representation was based upon numbers only, as would be the case in the general assembly.
55946-175i
Senate Reform
That reason was constantly before the fathers of confederation. So much was it in the minds of those who met at Quebec in 1864 that the fourteenth resolution calling for the creation of an upper house provided that the first appointments should be "upon the nomination of the respective local governments." That this was not done in no way weakens the evidence which this resolution provides that those who were responsible for making this country one nation fully recognized the important part the Senate should play in preserving those provincial rights which found expression in the British North America Act.
Now that the Supreme Court of Canada is to become the final court of appeal, and steps are also being taken to establish a procedure for amending our own constitution in Canada, this particular responsibility of the Senate assumes even greater importance than it had during the pre-confederation debates, or at the time of the passing of the British North America Act itself. For that very reason it seems most unlikely that final conclusions can be reached by the dominion-provincial constitutional conference unless reform of the Senate is considered at the same time. Not only should it become the effective legislative body which the senators themselves desire, but it should also assure constitutional safeguards which will prevent any tampering in the future with those fundamental principles which are the very bedrock of our national unity.
I do not think there is any need to extend the arguments in support of Senate reform. Almost everyone is agreed on this subject. The only question seems to be how and when it is to be done. In view of the fact that the subject has already been brought forward during the opening stages of the dominion-provincial constitutional conference, it seems that the time to deal with this question is now. If the appropriate steps are taken to review the mass of evidence and opinions which have accumulated over the years, and the subject is approached in a non-partisan manner and with full recognition of the fact that the Senate must be a party to any proposals put forward, then I think the subject should be given consideration without delay by a joint committee of this house and of the Senate, appointed with due regard to all political, provincial and geographical considerations.
No matter what opinion there may be as to the legal or constitutional position, I think it would be folly to bring about the Senate reforms which are so generally desired without full recognition of the fact that the

Senate Reform
provinces have a very direct and vital concern with the freedom, efficiency and authority of the Senate. This concern of local government in the power and responsibility of the upper house is a much more important consideration in a nation with a federal constitution than in a nation such as England with a single government.
While it was the desire to have the Canadian parliament as much as possible "a transcript of Westminster", nevertheless those who drafted our constitution were greatly influenced by the federal constitution of the United States. In fact the Canadian Senate bears a much closer resemblance to the Senate of the United States of that time than it does to the House of Lords. True, the senate of the United States was not appointed for life, but under their constitution each state legislature, without regard to the size of the population of the state, appointed two members to the senate of the United States. That was the way in which their senate was created and the way in which it functioned until May 31, 1913, when it became an elective senate under the seventeenth amendment.
Although the state legislatures of the United States no longer have the right of direct appointment, nevertheless minority and local rights are protected by the fact that the same number of senators are appointed for each state. Little Rhode Island appoints its two senators, who have the same rights and the same number of votes at Washington as have the two senators from the state of New York, with its enormous population.
It is not my intention to suggest what the reforms should be or how the Senate should be appointed. There are those who believe it should be elective. There are those who believe it should be partly elective and partly appointed. There are those who believe that it should be partly appointed by the dominion government and partly by the provincial governments. There are many other proposals. All should be considered.
The main point is that on a non-partisan basis there should be careful consideration of every reasonable suggestion made for the purpose of bringing about those reforms which are necessary to make the Senate an efficient and vigorous legislative body within our parliamentary system, and at the same time so constitute it and clothe it with the necessary authority as to protect those local interests, which it was intended by those who drafted our constitution should at all times be protected.
I do not propose to go into details of the cost of the Senate to the people of Canada. In sessional indemnities, travelling expenses,

official and secretarial service, allocation of building accommodation, to say nothing of the maintenance of the Senate chamber itself and all that goes with it, the figure runs into several million dollars. I do not know that it has ever been segregated in detail. That would only become an import-, ant consideration, however, if we were considering the possibility of doing away with the Senate entirely. I, for one, am strongly opposed to any such suggestion. I believe that to be the sentiment of the great majority of the members of this house, and of the people of Canada. The fact that the people of Canada are asked to contribute such large sums of money for this purpose does offer an added reason why the arguments of senators and others should be heard, and that steps should be taken without further delay to make those preliminary inquiries on a nonpartisan basis which are the essential requirements for the satisfactory consideration of those reforms which could be adopted with the least possible delay.
I shall introduce a motion calling for the appointment of a joint committee of this house and the Senate. If such a committee is appointed immediately, a preliminary report should be available before this house rises, in view of the fact that the whole field has been so fully canvassed in all the discussions which have taken place. I would remind the members of this house that many of the most important national constitutions now in existence were drafted in less time than remains before this house will rise at the end of the present session. If for any reason it were not possible to make recommendations within that time, the government can arrange for the inquiry to be continued while the house is not sitting by giving the same members of the house and the Senate that authority which has been given under similar circumstances on other occasions.
What I do wish to emphasize is the very great importance of having some recommendations which indicate the thoughts of the members of both houses, without regard to party affiliation, so that when the representatives of the dominion government meet the representatives of the provincial legislature later this year suggestions may be put forward which can be further examined, so that all governments will be in a position to present suggestions to their own legislative bodies when they meet next year.
At a time when democracy is facing as grave a threat as it has ever faced, it is of the utmost importance that our whole parliamentary system be such as to command the respect and admiration of those who govern

themselves through the legislative and administrative machinery which our constitution creates. It must be a matter of concern to every one of us, as it so obviously is to the members of the Senate, that as at present constituted the Senate finds itself unable to perform those tasks which it was intended to perform, and to take its full and effective share in our bicameral parliamentary system.
Many excellent speeches have been made over the years emphasizing the need of reform. An earlier prime minister went so far as to state that the survival of our democratic system demanded such reforms. In spite of the fact that this subject has been under discussion for over seventy-five years in the Canadian House of Commons, the one essential preliminary step has never yet been taken. The field of discussion has been fully covered, and from almost every possible point of view. The time has come for positive action if the dominion-provincial constitutional conference is noit to founder on this very rock. For the reasons which I have given, and for other reasons which have been so fully stated on other occasions, I do most earnestly urge the members of this house to support the following motion. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker):
That all the words after "that" to the end of the question he deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"It is expedient to appoint a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to study suggested constitutional changes affecting the Senate, including such matters as the method by which the members of the Senate shall be chosen, their tenure of office, and the better functioning of the Senate in our parliamentary system, with a view to formulating proposals to be presented to the government for discussion at the forthcoming dominion-provincial constitutional conference; such committee to have power to call for persons, papers and records; to sit while the house is sitting, and to report from time to time; and that a message be sent to the Senate requesting that house to unite with this house for the above purpose and to select, if the Senate deems it advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed joint committee."


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, this is a-very interesting and important resolution. I am sorry that, unlike the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), I am not fully prepared to discuss it this afternoon on a moment's notice. I think the resolution, if supported by the house, will serve a useful purpose. Whatever the outcome, it will focus public attention upon the Senate of Canada as at present constituted, and I believe that is all to the good. In our opinion the Senate of Canada is both archaic and undemocratic. It is also not representative of either the provinces of Canada or the points of view that have arisen within Canada since confederation. Consequently, a study of the
Senate Reform
Senate as part of the parliamentary institution of Canada should have been made long ago.
I would have preferred to have seen this resolution come in perhaps in another way, so that we might have had an opportunity of gathering together some data to support the kind of argument one would like to make. In our opinion, as the house well knows since we have expressed it on a good many occasions, the Senate of Canada should be abolished because we believe it has served, in recent years at least, no useful purpose other than to provide a place to which certain gentlemen who have served the interests of the old political parties may be sent in their later years of life. Whatever the outcome of this committee's work, I believe it should be borne in mind that if the Senate is not abolished then drastic reform should be considered.
I would point out to hon. members of this house that while to a large extent, I think to a larger extent perhaps than the leader of the opposition implied, the Senate of Canada was modelled on the British House of Lords. Its powers, like those of the House of Lords until 1911, are those of absolute veto, if it cares to exercise it, of anything this house may do. Surely it is undemocratic that in 1950 a non-elective chamber should have the power of absolute veto, whatever may be said of the desirability or otherwise of a second chamber having the right to revise, to reconsider, to delay and to refer back. In 1911 the British House of Commons, with the consent of the House of Lords, of course, and 'with the approval of His Majesty the King, passed the parliament bill which limited that veto so that a bill passed by the Commons at two successive sessions could, at the third session of the House of Commons, be passed without reference to the House of Lords, simply requiring the signature and approval of His Majesty the King.
In the last parliament of Britain that veto was further restricted by a new parliament act which reduced the period during which the Lords might retain control or might delay to a period which I believe now is approximately a year. That of course is the evolution of the democratic control of the parliamentary procedures in the United Kingdom.
We are far behind that legislation. In this country an unrepresentative chamber may delay and indeed may frustrate the will of the elected representative of the people of this country. That situation surely makes our democratic boast a more or less empty one, as long as this absolute power of veto remains. Consequently I have long been in favour of

Senate Reform
the abolition of the Senate; but if, because of our constitution, that cannot be achieved, then I have been wholeheartedly in favour of bringing in a large measure of reform in relation to the powers of the Senate of Canada.
It is often said that the Senate of Canada was for the protection of minorities. I have not been able to observe, at least in recent times, from my reading either of Canadian parliamentary history or of history since confederation, that that function has been well fulfilled. Indeed, sometimes I have thought that the minorities that have been protected in the past have not been minorities of the type that one would expect to be protected in a democratic country.
Then I have another criticism of the present establishment of the Senate. If we look at the manner in which it is set up we find this. Until recently there have been ninety-six members-now there are one hundred and two-twenty-four from the maritime provinces, twenty-four from Quebec, twenty-four from Ontario and twenty-four from the four western provinces and six from Newfoundland. As to the twenty-four from the four western provinces, when we consider the area of those four provinces and compare it with the area represented by the twenty-four from the maritime provinces

and I am not suggesting that we should take away from the maritime provinces that which they now have -what do we find? We find that we have four great provinces comprising vast areas of land, with quite a large population today, with great natural resources, and represented by four times six, six for each of the western provinces. The representation on that score is obviously unfair.
The leader of the opposition spoke of the United States senate and of the fact that a small state there will have in the senate of the United States the same representation as a large state. There is a great deal to be said for that system even in our own country; although even if we were not prepared to go that far, we should at least consider improving, if any reform is brought in, the representation from various parts of Canada.
As to the manner of choice, if we are going to have a second chamber, I think there is only one way in which that choice should be made and that' is by a direct vote of the people. That vote may not be, need not be, and perhaps should not be, coincident with the vote for the House of Commons. The manner in which this choice is made in the United States of course is simple because there the congress has a limited period of time; and that limited period of time of four
[Mr. Coldwell.l
years is of course the maximum as well as the minimum of duration. There can be no dissolution at any moment up to five years such as we have in our own country.
But in Australia, where you have the two chambers elected, an arrangement has been made whereby the upper chamber-the Senate, if you like to call it the Senate; and I think it is called the Senate-is elected at a different period and at a different time from that at which the more popular assembly is elected; although I believe-and again I am unprepared and am speaking from memory- there is in the Australian constitution a provision whereby under certain circumstances it is possible for the Senate and the house to be dissolved, and for an election for both houses to occur at the same time. I believe I am right in that particular.
When we compare our Senate with that of the United States we have to remember something else about it. I think we must remember that the ideas of the fathers of confederation were not those of the founding fathers of the United States; that is to say, the relationship which the founding fathers of the United States thought of as existing between the central government and the state was entirely different-quite the reverse, in fact-from the idea the fathers of confederation had.
I remember reading some years ago, when I was teaching the formulation of the British North America Act, an interesting letter that was written by Lord Elgin. I tried to look it up the other day for some other purpose but I was not able to put my hands on it. I know, however, that it exists. The letter said that he was happy that the Canadians, as he put it, did not model their institution of parliament upon the congress of the United States, and he gave his reasons therefor. He said that in the United States the founding fathers had taken virtually the situation that existed prior to the revolution, when you had the state's governor and his self-chosen or his own chosen appointees around him as advisers-the family compact as we call it in Canadian history-and that they had incorporated that situation into the American constitution, with dire results. All they had done was to transfer the struggle that went on between the governor and his family compact to a similar struggle between the congress of the United States, and the President and his advisers, who of course are not representative as we understand the cabinet as being representative under our British parliamentary system. That I think stems from this. I think that the whole conception of the United States constitution was different from ours. Under the British

North America Act the United Kingdom, upon the advice of the fathers of confederation, delegated certain powers to the provinces, retaining all other power in the hands of the central authority, this federal parliament. In the United States, the states delegated to the central government certain power and retained the residual power in the hands of the state, the very opposite to our own. Therefore, when we are talking about the Senate and the constitution of our two countries, we should always bear in mind that the conception of Canada as a nation was substantially different from the conception of the United States as a nation, and that the fathers of confederation did what they did deliberately when they founded this nation.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the amendment that has been introduced this afternoon can serve a very useful purpose. It can serve the purpose of focusing attention upon the bicameral Canadian institution. It can arouse public interest in the respective value of the House of Commons and of the Senate of Canada. It can lead either to a desire on the part of the people for the abolition of the Senate as now constituted, at least, or to the reform of the Senate in a very drastic and comprehensive way, to bring it more in line with the needs of a modern democracy.
So far as I am concerned, I have not been able to discuss this with any of my colleagues today. I think, however, the amendment should be supported by the house, although I must say I regret the manner in which it has come before the house-and in that I am not criticizing the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). The manner in which it should have come before the house is this. The government, knowing the situation in the upper chamber, should have introduced a discussion of this sort in the house on its own initiative and not left it to the opposition. Coming in at this late date perhaps it makes it a little difficult, although again the leader of the opposition did suggest that we might do what was done in relation to the setting up of a committee to study the new Indian Act and the conditions of the Indians several years ago, namely, continue the committee after the house rises. That could be done.
As I say, I regret that this matter did not come before the house earlier this session, and that the government itself did not take the initiative. I believe I have placed a point of view before the house. It may not be a point of view which is a popular one in the house, but I am certain of this, that the Canadian people want to see our parliamentary institutions reflect democracy in this country. As long as the Senate of Canada remains in the condition in which it is today-and I
Senate Reform.
readily admit there are some good people in the Senate of Canada-it will not invite the respect but rather the ridicule of the people of this and other democratic countries.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately members of our group were not aware before this matter was brought up this afternoon that it was to be brought up today. Consequently, we have had no opportunity to give the matter considered thought. On the face of it, though, I would say that there is much to be commended in the amendment which the leader of the opposition has moved, and much food for thought in the remarks with which he has accompanied the amendment.
In a general way I believe there is agreement across the country that we are not obtaining the results from the Senate that we have a right to expect. The Senate is a rather expensive institution in the Dominion of Canada. I think most people are of the impression that it is capable of delivering a very high order of service to the people of Canada, and that probably it is prevented from doing the good things that even it would like to do because of restrictions under which it is working, over which it has no adequate control.
It would therefore seem that it would be an idea quite worthy of commendation to invite the members of the Senate to meet with the members of the House of Commons and carefully canvass the whole situation, realizing that we have a nation now of 14 million people on our hands whose destinies it is the responsibility of these two great sections of parliament to look after.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the members of my group would be quite ready to support the amendment.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) may I say that the speeches which were delivered by the three hon. gentlemen who have preceded me indicate their interest in this subject. It is a continuing interest. The problem must be solved if democracy is to operate as it should.
As one looks back to the days when our constitution was being considered, it is of interest to note that the Senate originally was conceived on the basis of the legislative council of Canada, which was elective; that when the discussions took place at the time of confederation, or prior thereto, the only reason that the Senate became a nominated rather than elected chamber was that disputes arose among the members of the two conferences. These disputes arose out of the difficulties that

Senate Reform
the United States had found and which had culminated in the civil war. The debates of confederation days indicate that the final decision to provide for a nominated Senate was in consequence of the fact that the deliberations took place during the period of restoration and reconstruction immediately after the civil war.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) said it was unfortunate that this matter had not been brought before the house by the government. I agree with him entirely in that. Indeed I find it difficult to understand, having regard to the numerous occasions on which reform of the Senate has been declared to be of the essence of Liberal policy, that a measure of Senate reform has not long since been introduced. At the convention of the Liberal party in 1893 one of the outstanding resolutions passed dealt with the necessity of doing away with the archaic form of the Senate and bringing it up to date in accordance with the then concept of democratic government and of parliamentary institutions.
This is the only way in which the matter can be effectively brought before parliament by the opposition. If we were to bring it in, sir, through the medium of a private member's resolution you realize what would happen to such a resolution. Certainly no one would suggest that it would be intentionally talked out but that result would be achieved without much difficulty. The end would be that no consideration would be given to this most important matter.
Last fall a constitutional session was held wherein advances were made in our democratic form of government, and in bringing our political system up to date. The first time there was a general discussion regarding constitutional matters, particularly the necessity for reform of the Senate and the abolition of appeals to the privy council, was in the session of 1875, and the matter has been discussed on a number of occasions subsequently.
On March 1, 1875, Mr. Mills moved the following resolution:
That the house go into committee of the whole to consider the following resolution:
That the present mode of constituting the Senate is inconsistent with the federal principle in our system of government, makes the Senate alike independent of the people and the crown, and is in other material respects defective, and that our constitution ought to be so amended as to confer upon each province the power of selecting its own senators and to define the mode of their selection.
That resolution was debated at considerable length. Finally the house divided on it and it was carried by a vote of 77 to 74. After It was carried Mr. Mills was reported as saying in effect:
The house had committed itself to the principle that a change was desirable in the constitution of
tMr. Diefenbaker.]
the Senate-there could be no doubt about that proposition. The house had affirmed that the constitution of the Senate was inconsistent with the principle of our federal government, and some change should be made which would give to each province the appointment of its senators.
I am not accepting the suggestions then made, but I am pointing out that in the debates which took place the outstanding argument advanced was that the Senate was out of date and that it did not conform to the federal system of government, because appointment to membership was decided by nomination by the government. It is of interest to know that the debate has continued over the years. In 1921 Senate reform was part of the policy of the Liberal party. Reform of the Senate was of the essence of the election in 1925. I think in large measure that policy was the consequence of the debate which took place in 1923 in the house.
A motion was offered by Mr. Jean J. Denis, the then member for Joliette, and that motion appears at page 1364 of Hansard for March 21, 1923, in these words:
That, in the opinion of this house, it is expedient that a humble address be presented to His Majesty the King praying that the British North America Act be amended so as to provide that the members of the Senate instead of being summoned by the Governor General should be elected by the people for a term of six years in special senatorial divisions, the election for one-half thereof to take place every third year or should be elected for any other period of time or by any other mode of election as may be determined by parliament.
A most interesting debate followed in which various members of the house spoke. The speech by Mr. Denis needs no repetition. He placed on record the various events which had taken place leading up to the Senate being established in its present form. Then he finally arrived at this conclusion, which I believe is of interest to all hon. members, that there is no other self-governing British dominion that has a nominative Senate. The purport of his argument is that the experience since 1867 in Canada and in other parts of the commonwealth had indicated that a Senate appointed by a government in power did not discharge its responsibilities as effectively as it would if provision had been made either for election or for election in part and nomination in part.
Finally Mr. Fielding, a man of great experience in public life and a man who gave to his public service idealism that knew no party bounds over the years when he was premier of Nova Scotia, and following that as a member of the House of Commons, stated:
The original constitution of the Senate contemplated the recognition of provincial rights. It was taken for granted that it might be a danger to minorities and that the Senate might be needed for the protection of minorities.

Then he went on to say:
I agree that the constitution of the Senate today is not satisfactory. I do not join in any condemnation of the Senate. I think even as organized today it is capable of, and does, very good work. But unfortunately the distribution of our legislative work is such that we do not get the best out of the Senate.
This was said twenty-seven years ago.
For about a month after the Senate meets the chief business is to inquire what is on for the next day. There is nothing, and "Satan finds mischief for idle hands to do." Then, towards the end of the session the Senate is rushed and is not able to do properly the work for which it is specially designed; that is to say, the work of a revising body.
Then he proceeded:
I think it is desirable and expedient that we should have a second chamber, a chamber that should act as a brake-not a block-on the House of Commons; a chamber useful in many ways. I think a second chamber is useful and necessary in these days of so-called democracy, to guard against hasty legislation.
And his final opinion was expressed in this way:
I would appoint a senator for ten years. I would make him eligible for a second term, and retire him at, say eighty.
That was his suggestion, that there be appointment for a limited period of time. Others spoke in favour of election, while still others had in mind a system similar to that in effect in the United States where in fact the Senate is elected by the people and has been, as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has said, since 1913.
Debates on this subject have taken place on other occasions. The leader of the opposition has referred to the debates in the house in 1886. In the election of 1925, when reform was in the air, the former prime minister, Mr. King, promised to reform the Senate in order to make it an effective body to carry out the legislative responsibilities that devolve upon it. The means was that as appointments were made to the Senate those appointed would sign a declaration to the effect that they would join in their own reform. All of us felt through the years that those who had been appointed to the Senate had gone through that method of selfscreening, only to find about 1946 that the system had never been carried out or had never been brought into effect.
The experience since 1939 has shown that the Senate has had little or no opportunity to carry out its major responsibilities. Only a few pieces of legislation have originated there. Indeed in some sessions so little was the Senate used that the vast experience in parliamentary life which is available in that body was restricted in large measure to its divorce legislative functions. As far as other
Senate Reform
matters that came before it were concerned, they were too often to all intents and purposes perfunctory.
The result has been that over the years- this has accelerated in recent years-the people and even the Senators are asking what should be done in order to restore the Senate to a responsibility that it now does not discharge. I could quote various ministers of the crown who are now sitting in the seats of the mighty and who through the years have spoken of the necessity of reform. Only the other day the government leader in the other place spoke of the necessity of something being done. A recent appointee, Senator Stambaugh, made a speech in Alberta during the Easter holidays which indicated that after the few months he had been there his considered opinion was that something had to be done, that some definite consideration should be given to the necessity of reform in so far as the method of appointment and the discharge of a larger share of responsibility was concerned.
In 1925 Senate reform was mentioned in the speech from the throne. Then came 1926 and nothing more was heard about it. Reference to page 208 of Hansard of January 18, 1926, shows that Mr. Meighen spoke on that subject as follows:
I spoke some time ago of dear old friends who are missing and apparently gone forever, and amongst them none was more familiar, none more lamented than the figure of that great apparition known as Senate reform. Its death has been very recent, so perhaps we should speak of it with bated breath.
And he did. Then the late Mr. Lapointe followed and I quote from page 223 as follows:
My right hon. friend was most sarcastic when he referred to the reform of the Senate. Reform of the Senate! We have not changed our views about Senate reform from what they were last year. We said last year that the proposals of the government would be submitted to a conference of the provinces.


Mr. Meighen;: What are the proposals?


Mr. Lapointe:: The proposals which we will submit, and we expect that some of them, at least, will be accepted by the provinces. I contended then in the house, and I still submit that confederation was a pact among certain provinces and that you cannot alter that pact in any substantial feature without conferring with those who were parties to it..
Then he went on to say:
If my right hon. friend and my hon. friends opposite are kind enough not to put too many obstacles in our way, we will redeem their pledges as well as our own.
He was referring to a pledge to reform the Senate which had been given at one time at Halifax. The fact is that an appointed Senate is an anachronism in a democratic system. As far as I know in no other part of the commonwealth is there an appointed second chamber. Indeed in the countries that have set up constitutions within the last 25 or 30

Senate Reform
years an appointed second chamber has not been accepted. Having regard to the unanimous opinion of those sitting opposite over the years as to the need of this being done- I can find no dissenting voice from 1918 to 1930 and indeed some ministers now sitting opposite have been vociferous over the years in support of this proposal-surely we can expect some support to this motion which binds no one as to the form of the change that will be made. I read the terms:
It is expedient to appoint a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to study suggested constitutional changes affecting the Senate-
Various suggestions have been made. Some have suggested that we should have a Senate which was in part elected and in part appointed. Others have suggested that we should have an elected Senate which was elected for a period of time with one-third retiring every one-third of the period. Another suggestion has been that appointment be maintained but limited to a period of years.
This resolution binds no one to actual terms. It places the responsibility in the hands of a committee. It gives that committee the power to gather evidence and to submit recommendations so that when the dominion-provincial conference meets this year the question may be placed before it. Among the matters that will be placed before the committee if set up are such things as the method by which the members of the Senate shall be chosen-their tenure of office-and the better functioning of the Senate in our parliamentary system.
Surely these are desirable aims. Is there any hon. member anywhere who does not believe-I include those in the other place- that changes must be made in order to make the second chamber one that will render outstanding public service and perform the parliamentary responsibilities that it does not have, an opportunity to perform now?
I quote from the motion:
-with a view to formulating proposals to be presented to the government for discussion at the forthcoming dominion-provincial constitutional conference. . . .
We believe in the right of the provinces to be consulted on this matter as on all constitutional changes. What better time could there be than now, when the Supreme Court of Canada has been made the final court of appeal? What better time than now, considering the situation that exists in various parts of the world where parliamentary institutions, because they ceased to operate efficiently, have ceased to exist? What better time than now for parliament to set up such a committee for the purpose of making our parliament more effective in the discharge of

its democratic responsibilities? What answer can there be on the part of the government? Their promises of the past call on them to support the amendment. At no time has there ever been a word of dissent by the Liberal party as to the necessity of something being done. Some may argue that the time is too short for the committee to function. There are three or four weeks remaining at the very least, and possibly more, during which such a committee could sit, and study the systems adopted in other countries, and be in a position to place before the government information that it in turn could bring before the dominion-provincial conference.
Surely no one can say, "Let us wait until next year". It was promised in 1921. In 1925 time was of the essence. It was said that unless something was done immediately serious consequences would follow. Indeed I remember well a speech made by Mr. King on election night in 1935, and the outstanding feature of it was that reform of the Senate would no longer be delayed by a majority of the other party in the Senate. That was 1935, fifteen years ago, and I make allowance for the days of war when such matters could not come up. During his term of office the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has proceeded step by step to secure passage through the British parliament to provide for amendment of our constitution by ourselves in so far as federal matters are concerned, and has made the Supreme Court of Canada the final court of appeal in constitutional matters. Therefore is it not time, Mr. Speaker, that we join with members of the other place to build the most effective democracy we can under our parliamentary institutions? Reforms must come in the House of Commons, as we frequently advocate, and reform must also come in the other place. I ask members of the house irrespective of party to support the amendment to the end that the promises of the past and the protestations that have so often been made about the necessity of this being done may at least be carried one step forward in the effectuation of the desires of those on the other side of the house who have waited for so many years for the opportunity to do this very thing.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend at this time to discuss the merits of Senate reform. I have had no opportunity to conduct the research necessary for such learned historical statements as have been made in the house this afternoon. Of course the motion comes as quite a surprise at this time. No intimation of it was given. I am not complaining about that because no intimation has to be given of the matters the

opposition chooses to raise when a motion to go into supply is submitted by the government. Possibly if and when it ever happens that we are on the other side of the house we may be doing exactly what my distinguished friends have done on this occasion.
We have a motion to go into supply submitted by the government, and no matter how carefully or skilfully the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), and those who agree with him, may gild the pill of an amendment to the motion it is still a motion of want of confidence. They say that they hope the motion will receive support. It is always permissible to hope as long as there is life, and they hope that the government will be defeated. I submit to those who do not agree with them or share their hope that the opposition is not really serious in appealing to members on this side of the house, or in the upper half of the other side of the house, to support their motion.
It is an interesting motion, and we have heard interesting speeches made in support of it. The question of Senate reform is certainly one which is being given thought by a great many serious-minded Canadians who are interested in the Canadian constitution. I submit that first of all the amendment has the defect that it is a gilded attempt to secure a vote of the house which may mean the defeat of the government.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I wish to make it perfectly clear that the intention of the amendment is not that of want of confidence. We would welcome government support of a motion which is consistent with their expressed views. It is not a want of confidence motion.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There is a place the road to which is paved with good intentions, but whatever be the intentions that lie behind the motion its constitutional effect would be the defeat of the government if it were successful.


George Alexander Drew: Is that the place the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) was speaking about?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am sorry I was not here when the leader of the opposition made his speech, but if I had been here I would have tried not to interrupt him. The other serious defect of the amendment is that it is an invitation to the house to have the government break faith with the representatives of the provincial governments participating in the dominion-provincial constitutional conference which is now adjourned. The conference was called for the sole purpose of bringing back to Canada the right to do in
Senate Reform
Canada the things which Canadian conditions may require in the form of amendments to the present constitution. It was that invitation which was accepted, and it was on that invitation that the conference met. I have had little time to refer to the report of the conference, but I would remind hon. members that the correspondence leading to the conference was tabled in the house and printed as appendices to various issues of Hansard of the last session of parliament. I have had time to look at some short references to the purpose of the conference which appear in the printed proceedings of the constitutional conference of federal and provincial governments held from January 10 to 12 inclusive, 1950. On page 6 I find this short paragraph in my opening statement:
The purpose of this conference is to seek together to devise a generally satisfactory method of transferring to authorities responsible to the people of Canada the jurisdiction which may have to be exercised, from time to time, to amend those fundamental parts of the constitution which are of concern alike to the federal and provincial authorities.
Turning to page 111 should like to read a short paragraph from the statement made by the gentleman who is now premier of Ontario. It is in these terms:
As I understand it, we have not been called here to discuss proposed amendments to the constitution but rather to examine whether we should have power in Canada to make amendments if the need should arise and by what method. Ontario is not here asking for anything, nor is it being asked to give anything away.
The one purpose is to consider and answer the two general questions which I have stated.
I have not had time to go through all the statements, but on page 17 there is a statement by the premier of Nova Scotia headed, "Purposes of Conference". It reads as follows:
This is to discuss the feasibility of devising a constitutional amendment which will enable subsequent amendments to be made in Canada without resort to the parliament of the United Kingdom; except as to matters already within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Canadian parliament, pursuant to the B.N.A. Act (No. 2) 1949, or of the provinces under section 92(1) of the act of 1867.
It is to be noted that what is to be considered is a general procedure for amendment and not the consideration of particular amendments. We are concerned here with methods, rather than with the substance of amendments.
I had time to turn up one more, which is in the opening address of the premier of New Brunswick, and is to be found on page 21:
This conference has been called to consider a method of amending the constitution in Canada. We who are taking part in it shall, if we attain this objective, have established another milestone in the march of our country towards the goal of full nationhood.

Senate Reform
As hon. members know it was agreed at the end of three days' deliberation that a continuing committee would be set up to which the provincial governments would submit their views or their memoranda concerning the procedure that might be established. The conference is to be reconvened for the purpose of considering the effect of the joint briefs or memoranda submitted by the ten Canadian provincial governments and the federal government. It is for that purpose, and that purpose alone. I submit that we would not be acting in the spirit in which this conference can best function if we made any change in the purpose and objectives of the conference without prior agreement of those who have participated in it thus far, and who have agreed on the agenda established for their continuing participation.
A third reason is that I think, until we get this procedure for amending our constitution in Canada, it would be premature to discuss a specific amendment and expect the parliament of the United Kingdom to make the kind of reforms to our Senate which would be satisfactory to the Canadian public. I believe it is preferable to arrange our affairs in such order that we can, in our own country, do the things that the experience of seventy-five years will demonstrate to be desirable for the amendment of this democratic machine, which is required for the co-ordination of the common efforts of the Canadian people towards their ultimate destiny. Of course, if we cannot agree on a method of doing in Canada ourselves, if we find we have not yet reached that state of adult citizenship where we can take the responsibility in our own assemblies for the doing of the things that are for the purposes of our Canadian people, then perhaps we can deal with other matters. If we cannot agree on how amendments generally may be made, perhaps we can agree to ask the mother of parliaments to make this kind of amendment for us. I hope that when we come to grapple with this serious problem of making the right kind of amendments to the constitution of our Senate, the method of appointment and tenure of office, we will have already done the other thing and have asserted that we can, in Canada, in spite of the fact that there are ten Canadian provinces, and that on all matters the mentality of the people and the attitude of those who represent them in their legislature are not identical, we are nevertheless broad enough Canadians to devise and operate a system whereby Canadians will be doing in Canada the things designed for the welfare of the future generations of Canadians.
Without being any less prudent than the nember for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) 
in respect of those quoted opinions he has today put upon Hansard, I think I can agree with him, and he would agree with me, that there are important considerations that require serious study to bring about a system which will not create again the anomalous situation, which once before existed in our history, that is to say a one-sided other house of parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: What did the Prime Minister mean by "once before"?


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: Once before there was an overwhelming majority of one party, and that was not the Liberal party. Today there is an overwhelming majority of appointees made by Liberal governments. That comes about when a government is, in the opinion of the majority of the Canadian people, so efficient that it remains in office a long time. It was that which created the previous situation. The people of that time, rightly or wrongly- I am not commenting on the merits-felt that the government they had from confederation down to 1873, and which they took back again in 1878 and kept until 1896, deserved their confidence. It happens that for the last fifteen years the people have felt that the party responsible for the government has maintained in office a government that deserves their confidence, and the traditional system has been for the government to make appointments of ladies or gentlemen from its own political party. This brings about an anomalous condition which I think is worthy of serious thought and study, to see whether we can have something that will be more generally representative of the complexion of political opinion throughout the country. I do not think that that would be hastened by supporting this motion. I invite all those who still have confidence in this government to vote against the motion.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 6, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (enforcement).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Clarence Gillis: It should hardly be necessary, Mr. Speaker, to explain this bill inasmuch as it has been introduced in this house on a

couple of occasions and had considerable discussion when the national labour code was first adopted in this house. This bill has for its purpose the replacement of sections 43, 44, 45 and 46 of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and briefly it means this.
Under the present arrangements the national labour relations board has neither power nor authority in industrial disputes except to call in the parties to the dispute, listen to the evidence, come to no conclusion, and then send both parties to the dispute back home to take strike action and fight it out in the streets. It is our conclusion that the day for that kind of thing has gone by; that the labour movement that comes under the jurisdiction of the national labour code has grown up and that they are in the administrative stage; and that it is time that we brought the rule of law within the legislation that has as its aim the regulation and supervision of disputes that occur from time to time between management and labour. Under the present code, when a dispute gets beyond the jurisdiction of the board, no other action is possible except to apply to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) for the right to have the matter handled in the regular courts of law; and in our opinion it is the wrong place to try a labour dispute in a court of law before magistrates and judges who are trained in criminal law and the straight administration of civil law. Labour relations is an entirely different field, and in our opinion the proper people to determine the question as to whether or not an infraction of the law has been committed by one side or the other is the labour relations board. These men deal with the problem, they listen to the evidence, they know the labour code and its penalties, and they are in a better position to determine whether or not an infraction of the act has been committed by one side or the other.
This bill merely asks this parliament to place in the hands of the board the right to enforce their own legislation, just as is done now with regard to the Income Tax Act, the motor vehicles act and other acts that are in a specific field. They are enforced by the people who have jurisdiction under the act.
There is nothing new in this particular suggestion because we already have precedents in our own country. For example, a couple of years ago there was a dispute' in the province of Saskatchewan. That particular labour board took unto themselves the prerogative of deciding that John East Company in Regina was wrong in dismissing seven or eight employees. The board ordered their reinstatement, with full pay for the time they
Industrial Relations
were dismissed. They claimed they were wrongfully dismissed under the labour relations act that existed in that province. That matter went over to the privy council, and the privy council ruled at that time that the board had that right, and they exercised it at that time. Moreover, an act passed within the last couple of months in the province of Ontario has put in the Ontario labour relations act exactly the same provisions that we are asking in this bill to be extended to the national labour code.
The national labour code is applicable only to a small group of employees in this country; that is the group that come within the jurisdiction of the federal government, such as the national railways, the harbours board, the C.B.C. and shipping that is interprovincial. In view of the fact that the board has that limited jurisdiction in the field of labour, I think this is an opportune time to enact this bill and to give the national labour relations board some legal status. All the board will get under this bill is the right to determine that one side or the other has committed an infraction of the act. They assess the evidence. They place that evidence then in the hands of the magistrate who is charged with the enforcement of the act as it is. The magistrate hands down a decision in accordance with the penalties that are laid down now in the national labour code. If one side or the other is not satisfied, they then have the right of appeal. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this house should adopt this bill at this time, and let us see how it works out; for I visualize the time when this national labour code is going to embrace all of the workers in this country. I think the time has now come when we should start experimenting at least with this kind of legislation so that we may have some knowledge of it.
I should just like to draw this fact to the attention of the house. We are in a rather precarious position in the field of labour in national strikes. For example, in the packing house strike here about two years ago, when that whole industry was tied up from coast to coast, nothing could be done about it. Each province has jurisdiction in the field. Your national labour relations board could not touch it. It did not come within the purview of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell). It was difficult to get the various provinces together to take some action. I think it is time that we began to think in terms of national legislation, in our own interests, so that we may have jurisdiction in the event of national emergencies developing.
I am not going to occupy any more of the time of the house, Mr. Speaker. I have briefly

Industrial Relations
set out the basic idea that the bill contains, and I am now going to leave it to the tender mercies of the house.


Mr. Maurice Boisvert (Nicolel-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, for the past quarter of a century a double trend has been noticeable in the evolution of law. On the one hand we observe a transfer of their power to apply the law from the courts of justice to other bodies. Commissions, boards, and sometimes administrators have thus been invested with judicial and semi-judicial powers. On the other hand, there has been a growing tendency to apply to collectivities the object of legislation which was originally meant for individuals. This last trend has been most evident mainly in the judicial relations between employers and employees, for example in collective agreements and in the Minimum Wages Act. The legislation does not concern individuals any more but groups.
The bill which is before the house, sponsored by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), is another of those projects which would take away from courts, magistrates and judges the most important part of their functions, namely, that of hearing cases before passing sentences.
I am opposed to such incursions in the field of our judiciary system, one of the best in the world. Let us remember here- and 'I think this is admitted by all-that courts of justice and their procedure are the best protection we have for human rights and civil liberties.
The act which this bill would amend was assented to during the 1947-48 session and came into force on September 1, 1948. It seems to have worked very satisfactorily since then. The minister has given a broad and generous interpretation to its provisions, so that conflicts arising between employers and employees could be settled without necessarily imposing a fine on delinquents. It is a fact that, in'matters of public relations, the conciliation of disputes is the most effective way of maintaining good understanding between those who take part in the production, the transformation and the distribution of goods.
When different classes of society are called upon to co-operate, it is remarkable how much more a peaceful discussion, without recourse to the courts of justice, has helped the parties than a strict application of the provisions of the law. This was the opinion expressed by the Minister of Labour during the debate on the resolution introducing the act in 1947.

We have been told that the amendment is similar to legislation applied by some provinces and some other countries. If my information is correct, in Saskatchewan a provision somewhat like the one we are asked to adopt has given rise to numerous conflicts and litigation. In the United States, where the labour relations board has extensive powers, difficulties have arisen which have been far from improving good relations between employers and employees.
I think I may assert that since the act has come into force there have been few demands for court proceedings and most of the time those conflicts which arose have been settled on a friendly basis.
In order that a law may achieve its aim, it must be possible to apply sanctions against those who violate its provisions, otherwise the law will be useless.
Let us take a brief look at the act which we are asked to amend. It is chapter 54 of 11-12 George VI. This act is in two parts. The first part deals with the powers and duties of those who come under its application. The title of the act should be noticed: "An Act to provide for the Investigation, Conciliation and Settlement of Industrial Disputes". The act is under the administration of the Department of Labour, a labour relations board with powers specified under section 61 of the act. This is dealt with in the second part of the act. The powers of the board are of an inquiring nature. It has to see that the people under its jurisdiction come under the provisions of the act.
The intention of the legislature was that any offence against a provision of the act should be punished; and it is up to the tribunals to decide if there has been any violation and to punish accordingly.	.
Sections 39 to 47 inclusive provide for appropriate penalties and indicate the manner in which court proceedings should be instituted so that the law may attain its end.
The wording of the title of the act clearly signifies that it provides not simply for investigation but also for the conciliation and settlement of industrial disputes. It is also stipulated that the minister will have power to appoint a conciliation board or conciliation officer in order to prevent a dispute from deteriorating into a lawsuit which would mean heavy fines for the parties and very often considerable costs.
The amendment would do away with? one, the jurisdiction of the minister in matters of conciliation and settlement; two, the jurisdiction of the conciliation boards appointed under the act; three, the jurisdiction of the conciliation officer appointed by the minister; four, the jurisdiction of the courts of

justice in charge of the application of the act in matters of violations of its provisions; all of such jurisdiction being turned over to the labour relations board, except as to sentences.
The sections of the act concerned with the proposed amendment are sections 43 to 47 inclusive. Here is a brief summary of the procedure contained in those sections.
If a complaint in writing is submitted to the minister by a party to collective bargaining, that the other party refuses to comply with the law, the minister may refer the case to the labour relations board which shall investigate and order what measures it will deem necessary. Every employer, employers' organization, trade union or other person in respect of whom such an order is given will be bound to comply with such order.
If a person claims that any of the provisions of the act have been violated and makes a complaint in writing to the minister, the minister may appoint an industrial inquiry commission or a conciliation officer to investigate and make a report to him in respect of the alleged violation of the act or of an order of the board which would be binding on both parties. It is only after such investigations that the minister may use his discretion. According to section 45, he does not have to act, but if it should become necessary to do so he must give his consent in writing for the prosecution. Offences must be prosecuted by summary conviction in accordance with part XV of the Criminal Code. Such offences are heard and sentences pronounced b>
judges or magistrates appointed by the province.
There can be an investigation conducted either by the inquiry commission or by the conciliation officer. After such an inquiry and following the report, the minister can still bring the parties to an understanding; and experience has shown that court proceedings have seldom been necessary. It should be noted that if the parties appear before a court of justice, a new inquiry will be conducted by the judge or the magistrate and it is only after that fines can be imposed. It goes without saying that according to part XV of the Criminal Code, there can be an appeal to a superior court.
The amendment would destroy the entire process of conciliation contained in the act and invest the labour relations board alone with the power to conduct an investigation and of issuing orders indicating that such and such a party is guilty of a violation of some provision of the act. Such order would then be filed in the magistrate's court of the jurisdiction in which the violation took place, and the magistrate would then impose the
Industrial Relations
penalties provided in the act without having any power to examine the merits of the order except that, in the case when the order "is ambiguous or its meaning not clear", he may refer it to the board for clarification.
In my opinion, the amendment, apparently harmless, ruins the whole economy of the act which must be above all an act for conciliation; and on this ground I am opposed to the amendment.
From a judicial point of view, the amendment is harmful because it attacks the separation of powers. It is revolting in law to ask a judge to pronounce a sentence without allowing him to become acquainted with the provisions of the law, hear the parties to the dispute and their witnesses, so that he may judge the merits of the case in which he must pronounce a sentence.
The contemplated amendment is equivalent to this. The labour relations board will say to the magistrate: "Such provision has been violated; please impose the penalty provided in sections 39 and following of the act". Such proceedings would be a blow to the proper functioning of our criminal law. Section 726 of the Criminal Code states as follows:
The justice, having heard what each party has to say, and the witnesses and evidence adduced, shall consider the whole matter and, unless otherwise provided, determine the same and convict or make an order against the defendant, or dismiss the information or complaint, as the case may be.
According to the amendment, the magistrate can only pronounce on the amount of the fine, say $5 to $250 as provided in the act. The only ground for appeal from such sentence by any party will be the inadequacy of the fine. There will be no appeal on the merits of the conviction.
It can be easily seen, then, that this amendment is a step back instead of a step forward. I should be very much surprised if in a country where justice is held in such high esteem, where everyone shows great confidence in our tribunals, we should find individuals, trade unions and employers who would be willing to see our tribunals hand out sentences as one hands out receipts.
The act had provided for a fair distribution of the powers of investigation and of conciliation, but did not define the powers of the tribunals which were to be called upon only as a last resort.
The act is broad and supple enough in its interpretation to allow an understanding to be reached in labour and industrial relations. It also provided that court proceedings should be instituted only after all other means of conciliation should have been tried. It did not define the powers of the tribunal as it expected

Industrial Relations
those powers to be exercised within the framework of those institutions which we respect and Which are the foundation of our democracy.
The protection of the individual rests upon the dealing of justice. This justice Should be dealt according to fixed rules in such a way that each party should be satisfied even if one should be fined.
I do not wish my words to be interpreted as an opposition to boards, commissions and administrators. But I am in favour of leaving untouched the fundamental jurisdictions of our courts of justice. The sabotage of the courts of justice is the beginning of anarchy in any country. We can see what is happening in countries under Russia's protection. The courts of justice simply carry out decisions taken beforehand by the government. If a conviction is needed following an order from the head of the state, the court simulates a trial and a conviction occurs in all cases. What hurts in others must be rejected at home.
Knowing the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), I am sure he did not intend to give this meaning to the proposed amendment. He thought it would simplify proceedings. He noticed particularly the powers of investigation mentioned in the act, forgetting that the primary aim of the act is the conciliation and settlement of industrial and labour disputes.
The tendency in the evolution of modern law to invest state organisms with judicial powers makes it easy, even in genuine good faith, to deviate from the important principle stated in section 7 of the declaration on human rights as follows:
Everyone has the right to have his criminal and civil liabilities and his rights determined without undue delay by a fair public trial and by a competent tribunal before which he has opportunity for a full hearing. The state has a duty to maintain adequate tribunals and procedures to make this right effective.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on May 16,	1947,
quoted before this house a declaration of the Manitoba civil liberties association in which it was said:
No Canadian citizen shall be denied justice as administered in the regularly constituted courts of law.
We have in the country remarkable judiciary institutions. We have competent and respectable justices. Canadian justice is highly respected by all Canadians and by all those outside the country who study our institutions. Why should we overthrow a system by having someone with the power to investigate and someone else with the power to
	j
apply sanctions? The faith and confidence I have in our tribunals induces me also to oppose the amendment and I shall vote against the bill.


Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: I do
not intend to make a speech, but rise only to ask the hon. member who introduced the bill if he would answer a question in connection with something he said to the effect that the Ontario legislature had passed a bill this year. What bill was it?


Clarence Gillis: It is the provincial labour code which was passed, I believe, about two months ago.


William Joseph Browne: I have both of them here and I cannot find that provision in them.


Clarence Gillis: It contains that very provision.


William Joseph Browne: I cannot find it.


Clarence Gillis: The hon. member may have the draft bill. The draft is amended, and the final bill which was passed contained the provision I mentioned.


Mr. A. C. Stewart (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at length concerning the bill before the house. The effect of the proposed amendment has been fairly well covered by the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Boisvert) who has preceded me in the debate. However, for the edification of the house perhaps in somewhat shorter terms I might explain what I consider to be the effect of the bill. In my view the effect is to strike out paragraphs 43, 44, 45 and 46 in the present act.
I do not think ninety per cent of the members of the House of Commons have had any requests from unions in their constituency for the repeal of those sections.


Clarence Gillis: Do you mind if I put you right on that?


Alan Carl Stewart: I do not mind a
question; but you have made your speech.


Clarence Gillis: Are you aware of the fact that the Canadian Congress of Labour, representing all of the industrial unions in Canada, on behalf of those unions recommended this when the national labour code was adopted?


Alan Carl Stewart: I am aware of the fact, and I would remind the hon. member that the Canadian Congress of Labour does not by any means represent all labour organizations in Canada.


Clarence Gillis: I said the industrial unions.


Alan Carl Stewart: And I am also aware of the fact that whether they are right wing

or left wing of that political party, the C.C.F. and the Canadian Congress of Labour have a very close alignment. The memorandum from the Canadian Congress of Labou- to the government is contained in a pamphlet from the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada where, at page 13, they say this:
As indicated in our memorandum of last year, we accepted the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act as a good start in the right direction. We also said then that we would watch the administration of the act very carefully.
They have done that. I have said, and I repeat, that there has been no request from any labour union in my constituency for these amendments.


Mr. Lennard:: You have none.


Alan Carl Stewart: We have labour unions in our constituency.


Frank Exton Lennard: Farm unions.


Alan Carl Stewart: We have running trades unions and every other kind of union such as wholesale warehouses and so on. None of them has requested these changes. The whole object of these changes is simply to take matters from the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) and pass them over to a board. In the time I have attended this house I think hon. members generally will agree that we have heard nothing but compliments about the Minister of Labour and about the way he has conducted the work of his department. We have heard those compliments from our friends in the C.C.F. and from the official Conservative opposition and I think they are well deserved.
If we consider what is happening in labour circles in the United States, if we even compare conditions here with those in the state of Michigan, I think we will agree that the minister has done a good job. The unemployment situation today, despite the prophets of gloom to my immediate left, has improved. In the three constituencies adjoining the employment office at Yorkton there were over 2,000 seasonal unemployed a month ago. That number has dwindled to 500 and they are going to need workers at the end of the month. That is the situation there.
This bill will take away from the Minister of Labour rights that he had under the act. Section 43 of the act provides that when the minister receives a complaint in writing from a party to collective bargaining he may refer the same to the board. That leaves it to the judgment of the minister and from what has happened in Canada it would appear that the judgment of the Minister of Labour has been fairly sound.
Then under section 44 of the act a person complaining to be aggrieved because of an
Industrial Relations
alleged violation of any of the provisions of the act may make a complaint in writing to the minister. That would be taken away by the proposed amendment. That section goes on to provide that the minister may require an industrial inquiry commission to be; appointed. Then under section 45 a prosecution for an offence under this act may be brought against an employers' organization or a trade union and an information or complaint in respect of a contravention of the provisions of the act may be laid.
The whole effect of these amendments is to permit the appointment of a board without any consultation with the minister. We have had some experience in Saskatchewan with labour boards. We do know that while the C.C.F. claim that the Canadian Congress of Labour and themselves are one, are almost an entity politically, there are a great number who belong to the Canadian Congress of Labour who have not adopted the C.C.F. as their political arm. I should like to quote from a letter from one who was known as a member of the ginger group and who sat in this parliament for many years. He now lives rn Hamilton and he certainly was not biased in so far as the C.C.F. was concerned. He writes:
I came to Hamilton with a warm spot in my heart for the C.C.F. even if I never called myself a socialist; but it did not take me long to lose any sympathy I had for them when I saw the workings of the C.I.O. machine here. Now I know something about labour unions. I was working energetically to get my brother station agents and telegraph operators organized forty-five years ago. When I left the C.N.R. I was O.R.T. committee man for the C.N.R. territory Winnipeg to Edmonton, Dauphin to Prince Albert and intervening branches. However in those days nothing was done without the full understanding and co-operation of the men and a strike without being authorized by a ballot vote was unthinkable. The steel strike that tied up so much business here three years ago would never have happened had the men been given a government supervised ballot vote.


Clarence Gillis: On a point of order, I should like to know what document the hon. member is reading from, where it was written and what it has to do with this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Clarence Gillis: I am speaking to a point of order. What has somebody who is working in Hamilton and who belonged to the C.C.F. at one time to do with the present bill under discussion in this house?


Alan Carl Stewart: That is not a point of order.


Clarence Gillis: That is a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The point raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton South is that the document which the hon. member for Yorkton is reading is not related in any

Industrial Relations
way to the principle of this bill. If that is so, then of course the hon. member should not continue to read it. On the second reading of private and public bills, as well as other bills presented to the house, the discussion must be on the principle of the bill.


Alan Carl Stewart: I was speaking on the principle of the bill. I have submitted that this bill was not introduced to this house as a result of any request of organized labour.


Clarence Gillis: A lie.


Alan Carl Stewart: It was merely put up-


Clarence Gillis: Deliberate.


Alan Carl Stewart: -by the political arm of the Canadian Congress of Labour and they are merely bringing it in as a political party.


Clarence Gillis: I rise on another point of
order. Apparently the hon. member is not familiar with the rules of the house because he is imputing motives. I introduced the bill at the request of a legislative body in Canada that represents all industrial workers in this country on an industrial basis. The hon. member would not understand that. I want the hon. member to withdraw that statement.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member-


Mr. Mitchell:: I rise to a point of order.


Clarence Gillis: The Speaker is on his feet.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yorkton must not impute motives to another hon. member. I am not sure that what he has said amounts to the imputing of motives.


Clarence Gillis: Definitely.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yorkton must accept the statement of the hon. member for Cape Breton South that the bill was introduced by him on request.


Alan Carl Stewart: I quite agree.


Humphrey Mitchell: I rise to a point of order. I think my good friend from Cape Breton South said,-


An hon. Member:: Louder.


Humphrey Mitchell: If you want it louder I can raise the roof. I think the hon. member for Cape Breton South said something about what my friend said being a lie. I do not think that is a fair thing to do. He may be misinformed.


Clarence Gillis: He was not misinformed because five minutes ago I informed him.


Humphrey Mitchell: Just a minute, the hon. member is not in local 103, Cape Breton; he is in

the House of Commons. I think the hon. member for Cape Breton South should withdraw his remark in fairness to the hon. member for Yorkton.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not hear any hon. member say that the statement made by another hon. member was a lie. Of course that is unparliamentary and I am sure if the hon. member did make the statement he will withdraw it. But at the same time the hon. member for Yorkton must withdraw any imputation which he has made against the hon. member for Cape Breton South.


Alan Carl Stewart: I made no imputation.


Mr. Speaker:: Or any reference to improper motives by the hon. member for Cape Breton South.


Alan Carl Stewart: There is nothing on the record. My statement is this, and I will repeat it. If I am out of order I know Your Honour will say so.


Mr. Speaker:: I think we can clear up this whole matter. The hon. member for Cape Breton South should withdraw the statement that he made that something said by another member was a lie, and the hon. member for Yorkton should withdraw any imputation which he made against the hon. member for Cape Breton South.


Gordon Graydon: "Even Stephen".


Alan Carl Stewart: As far as any imputation is concerned I did not even mention the hon. member for Cape Breton South. I said that this bill was introduced by the hon. member for Cape Breton South as a member of the C.C.F. party. I do not think that is unparliamentary.


Mr. Speaker:: I think we should clear this up right away. I understand the hon. member for Yorkton imputed a motive to the hon. member for Cape Breton South. The hon. member for Cape Breton South denied the imputation. The hon. member for Yorkton must accept his denial and withdraw it, and the hon. member for Cape Breton South must withdraw the word he used, "lie".


Alan Carl Stewart: Then-


Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand you both withdraw?


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, he started it and I am waiting for him.


Alan Carl Stewart: I do not know what I am withdrawing. I did not impute any wrong motives.


Mr. Speaker:: The house might agree that the unparliamentary statements of both speakers have been withdrawn.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Siewari (Yorklon):: As to the proposed amendment to the bill I should like to quote from an Ottawa dispatch of March 8 relating to the C.C.F.


Frank Exton Lennard: What year?


Charles A. Stewart: This year. It reads:
C.C.F. leader M. J. Coldwell Wednesday hailed the establishment ol a permanent political action committee of the Canadian Congress of Labour.


Clarence Gillis: What has this got to do with the bill?


Alan Carl Stewart: It continues:
Coldwell said he had not been previously informed of the C.C.L. decision to put political action on a permanent basis, but said whatever work it did would be certain to benefit the labour movement in politics, represented in Canada by the C.C.F.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment to the act does not help labour one iota, that labour has not asked for the amendment, and that it is a purely political movement to help the C.C.F. in accordance with declared policy. It is to help a political party.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, I rise again on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the statement of the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Stewart) is a question of fact which may be denied or accepted by other members of the house.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, that is the very statement he just withdrew.


Mr. Speaker:: No, the statement which was withdrawn was that the hon. member for Cape Breton South was introducing the bill not because he had representations from labour men but wholly for political purposes. That has been withdrawn. Now the hon. member for Yorkton says that it does not help labour.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just repeated what he said before. On the point of order-


Charles A. Stewart: Are you on the
point of order still?


Clarence Gillis: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: You have been ruled out of order twice.


Clarence Gillis: The hon. member for Yorkton should take a few lessons from the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). He gives lessons on the rules of the house. The hon. member just made the statement that the bill was introduced without any representations from labour. The Minister of
Industrial Relations
Labour (Mr. Mitchell) and every other member of the industrial relations committee who framed this code-


Charles A. Stewart: That is argument, not a point of order.


Clarence Gillis: I am just giving the hon. member some information.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The point which the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) is now making is the point I have just made. He can make these representations at the close of the debate when he replies.


Clarence Gillis: That will be next month.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps. But a second
speech would close the debate. The hon. member for Yorkton.


Charles A. Stewart: I continue with what I was reading:
"Of course there is no direct organizational connection between the C.C.F. and the C.C.L." Coldwell said.


Clarence Gillis: This has a lot to do with the principle of the bill.


Charles A. Stewart: Will you be quiet and keep order. I continue:
"They simply recognize us as the political arm of labour and we recognize them in the same way as we do the Trades and Labour Congress and the Catholic Labour syndicates. Whatever they do in the war of propaganda and educational campaigns as a political action committee will surely benefit us in the next general election campaign," Coldwell added.
The whole purpose of the amendment is not to benefit labour. It is a part of the next general election campaign of the C.C.F. to try to show labour, as the hon. member for Cape Breton South well knows, that they have been trying to do something that labour never asked for. I am opposed to any such change as that in the bill now before us.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, I should like to ask the hon. member for Yorkton to indicate the source of the report he has just read, and also the name of the person who wrote the letter from which he read a few minutes ago.


Charles A. Stewart: That is not a point of order, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who flatters himself on his knowledge of the rules, well knows. The article in question was contained in an Ottawa paper and the statements I have read are quotations from your own leader.


Clarence Gillis: What Ottawa paper?


Charles A. Stewart: You can see it afterwards if you want to.

Industrial Relations


Clarence Gillis: Not necessarily.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the question as to the source of the information should have been asked at the time the information was being given to the house. It is on record now and we cannot strike it off the record. The hon. member for Yorkton has given certain information to the house but there is one detail he has not given, and that is the name of the paper. If he has the name of the paper he might give it.


Alan Carl Stewart: I think it is the
Ottawa Citizen. Anyway it is a press dispatch from Ottawa dated March 8.


Clarence Gillis: You are rather careless with your facts.


Alan Carl Stewart: You get these other people to help you out and you are out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the point of order, it is not very long since the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) was prohibited from reading a letter to the house because he did not wish to give the name of the person who had written it. I ask the hon. member for Yorkton simply to give the house the name of the person who wrote the letter from which he read.


Alan Carl Stewart: I will read the rest of the letter and give you his name. I want to get through before nine o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right.


Alan Carl Stewart: It reads:
The steel strike that tied up so much business here three years ago would never have happened had the men been given a government supervised ballot vote. Today 1,600 men of the Canadian Car and Foundry Company here are out. These men were summarily called out by the little Hitlers who boss them and never given a chance to vote on whether to accept the company's offer. With the C.I.O. furnishing the campaign funds for the C.C.F. naturally the party is under their domination. Had all the C.I.O. workers with their families voted C.C.F. as they are supposed to do the three seats here, Hamilton West, Hamilton East and Wentworth could easily have been carried by the C.C.F. The men as individuals dare not face up to these leaders (bosses) as reprisals come thick and fast but when it comes to a secret ballot vote such as the election yesterday at least half of them vote against the C.C.F.
There should be a secret ballot vote conducted by government before any men can be ordered out on strike. The C.I.O. chiefs and the C.C.F. members would fight it but they preach democracy while practising something as near to naziism as it can be.
That letter is written by Mr. Milton N. Campbell who was a member of the old Progressive ginger group in the house for at least ten years, and later a member of the tariff board.

In addition it is not in the best interests of labour relations to transform the Canada labour relations board into a judicial body from which no appeal would lie. It is not in keeping with the best traditions of a democratic country to deprive individuals of the right of access to the courts in matters where penalties may be assessed against them. By removing the necessity for obtaining leave to prosecute from the minister the proposed amendment would tend to make the Canada labour relations board into a grievance committee for either employers or trade unions. The act has only been on the statute books since September, 1948. Nothing that has transpired since would indicate that the present provisions are not wholly effective for their purpose.	.
As I pointed out, in Saskatchewan we have been given certain labour legislation. A board has been appointed there; and the head of that board happens to be vice-president of the C.C.F. party. If you want to see what this board does on occasion, without requiring permission from the minister, without knowing anything about the laws of evidence or about sizing up witnesses or anything but C.C.F. politics, look at the words of the chief justice of Saskatchewan in re The Trade Union Act 1944, as reported in volume 2 of the Western Weekly Reports of 1949. The judgment of the court, delivered by the chief justice, who has been there many years, contains these words:
I cannot bring myself to believe that this case is representative of the board's actions in general. If it is then I would say that the board's usefulness is at an end. Businessmen and employees alike will shudder at the thought of bringing their disputes before the board for settlement.
The board, in some respects, is like the umpire in a baseball game. They both must be strictly impartial. The players and the fans will allow for an occasional mistake on the umpire's part but if the mistakes are flagrant and are constantly to the advantage of one side his usefulness is gone; the game breaks up in confusion and all good sportsmen leave the field in disgust	
That is the judgment of the chief justice of the court of king's bench, referring to the vicepresident of the C.C.F. party, who was chairman of the board in our province. Regardless of the rights of labour or of any particular labour unions, there is another group of people who must be kept in mind in all matters of labour legislation. I refer to those people in Canada who belong to no unions at all. These include the great body of our farmers and the white collar workers to whom we often refer. They do not belong to unions; they are not part of this spiral which is forcing up wages and getting concessions for themselves. They must take what they get, and they need some protection also.

I have heard it said that a strike is healthy, and so on, but the average farmer in my constituency does not like strikes. The average man on. the street who must pay more if strikes occur does not like them either. We in this country have been very fortunate in the relations that have been maintained between the labour department and all sections of labour in Canada. We must not put class against class, as the C.C.F. have been doing for the last eight years. They have done nothing but prophesy blue ruin, unemployment, and everything going to the bow-wows. If we have given any help to Russia and the communists it has been through their line of propaganda. That is what we have had in Canada. Thank goodness we have a labour minister who has been a union man himself and understands both the public and the various labour organizations. Because of his broadmindedness we have advanced labour legislation in this country.
Let us give that legislation a fair chance. Let us not try through that legislation to favour one party for political reasons. Don't keep bringing into this house silly amendments that would not work out any better than the labour laws in Saskatchewan are working at the present time. We are going to have another strike there this week in connection with the electric light plants, where there never was a strike before we had a C.C.F. government. I am opposed to any change in our labour law at the present time. I think we should be thankful for what has been done not only by the'minister but by the experienced men in his department, both during and since the war, to maintain employment. As I say, the situation out west has improved tremendously, as it will improve all over Canada so long as these calamity howlers do not bring into this house half-baked legislation that means nothing and that no one in Canada wants.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker-[DOT]


Humphrey Mitchell: If the hon. member is going to close the debate-*


Clarence Gillis: The Minister of Labour is going to talk it out.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not want to talk anything out.


Clarence Gillis: It is five minutes to nine. Let us vote on it.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend spoke for quite a while, and I think I should be permitted to say a few words. I want to say very frankly that fundamentally I am opposed to this legislation. That is a speech in a sentence. I do not believe in amendments to acts of
Industrial Relations
parliament based upon hypothetical cases. If my hon. friend can show me one federal case-


Clarence Gillis: Do you want me to do it?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


Clarence Gillis: Give me one minute and I will give you a case.


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


Clarence Gillis: The minister asked for one example, and I can give it to him in one minute. That is the Hull Transportation Company case. They tested this legislation, and you know the results.


Humphrey Mitchell: Oh, all right; I know all about the Hull Transportation case.


Clarence Gillis: That is one case. I can give you one or two more if you like.


Humphrey Mitchell: They had their day in court.


Clarence Gillis: Before a magistrate who did not know there was such a thing as a labour code.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is very easy to criticize the courts. The only reason my hon. friend is sitting in this House of Commons-he was not here the other evening when I explained it-is because of the rule of law and habeas corpus.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Habeas corpus again.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, and I told my hon. friend all about that the other evening. You cannot have your cake and eat it. You must have either a judicial board or a representative board; it is as simple as that. I say frankly and sincerely that I do not believe we should amend a law because of a hypothetical case.


Clarence Gillis: It is not a hypothetical case; it is a concrete example.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is a matter of opinion, and you are only here as a matter of opinion.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if neither of these hon. gentlemen knows who has the floor I would like a shot at it.


Some hon. Members:: Nine o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid I must deprive all hon. members of the opportunity of speaking on this bill this evening, because it is now nine o'clock.


Humphrey Mitchell: Then I move the adjournment of the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour reserved for public and private bills having expired, the house will now resume the business under consideration at six o'clock.

Senate Reform SUPPLY



SENATE REFORM

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Fournier (Hull) for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew.
Mr. J. M. Macdonn.ell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few observations on the amendment moved this afternoon by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) with regard to the question of Senate reform. I do not think any serious person, certainly no serious person interested in the institutions of our country, can be happy when he surveys the position of the Senate at the present time. Even those of us on the outside, who do not participate in its proceedings and have no responsibility for it, cannot help but feel that it is a sad and indeed serious thing that an institution which has played a worthy part in the past and which in my opinion has an opportunity of playing a worthy part in the future should be allowed to languish in the position in which the Senate finds itself at the present time.
It is not as though a second chamber were a new idea that had not been tested before. We all know that second chambers have been employed by practically all serious, civilized nations in their forms of government. There may have been some changes during the war, but immediately before the war it could be said that few countries, and no major countries, were without a second chamber.
I am not going to pursue that further than to say that I think every serious person will wish, not that the Senate should be abolished but that it should be improved. Of course, Senate reform has become a kind of joke in this country because it has been talked about so long and nothing has been done about it. It has become like the weather. I want to recall to hon. members the fact that for thirty years-yes, thirty years-the matter has been commonly talked about. I go back to an incident in this house many years ago; it is not thirty years ago, but it is some twenty-six or twenty-seven years ago. I quote from Hansard of 1926-27, page 355, when the famous pledge with which nearly all members are familiar was disclosed or at any rate confirmed by the former prime minister in this house, in answer to a question by Mr. Evans. Mr. Evans asked this question:
1.	What is the form or wording of the pledge, if any, taken from those who have been appointed senators during the last two years with a view to Senate reform?
2.	How many have been thus pledged?
[Mr. Speaker.!
Here is Mr. King's answer:
1.	An assurance of support of such measure of Senate reform, in conformity with the requirements of the constitution, as may be introduced by the Liberal administration.
That is Mr. King's answer, that the formal wording of the pledge was an assurance of support. And his answer to the question, how many, is this:
2.	This assurance has been given by all who have accepted appointments to the Senate within the time mentioned.
Then two years ago the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre-


Stanley Howard Knowles: North Centre.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am sorry,
the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked again as to these pledges; and again the then prime minister, Mr. King, replied. He said as reported at page 854 of Hansard of 1948:
There was nothing in the nature of a written pledge. There was no pledge made to the government, as a government. It was an undertaking that was given to myself, as the one who is responsible for nominating members to the Senate. How many there were from whom I received that assurance, I cannot say at the present time. Nor am I in a position to say just when I ceased to raise that question. It did not become as important later on when we had a majority in the senate-
There a delightful confession that you should all observe. In other words, Mr. King says in effect that he lost interest in it as soon as there was a majority in the Senate.
It did not become as important later on when we had a majority in the Senate, and were, in a position to see that permanent legislation originating in this house was not defeated because of action on the part of a hostile opposition in the upper chamber.
I shall have occasion to show in a moment or two, Mr. Speaker, that there were different views held of the Senate-much better and higher views, in my opinion-and they were held by people, I am glad to say, in both of the old parties.
I call the attention of the house to this pledge situation. I do not know whether we should ask an accounting from these senators, who were appointed many years ago with the idea of Senate reform very much in their minds perhaps, and certainly in the prime minister's mind. I do not know whether to picture them as straining at the leash in all these years in order to have Senate reform effectuated. I do not know whether they were held back by the then prime minister or whether the reverse was the case; but at any rate we all know that during all these years nothing has been done except the uttering of a lot of brave words.

Then we come to the amendment this afternoon, and I should like to refer to what was said by the leader of the C.C.F. party. He said, and I think very truly, that this is a proposal we might well have expected to receive from the government. Certainly after all these years we might have expected to receive it. We did not, however, receive it from the government. What is worse than that, apparently not only was it not to be done by the government but it was not to be done by anybody else because apparently in this house only the government can initiate things. When this moderate resolution was initiated this afternoon by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) took the view that nothing should be suggested from this side of the house because he said that by so doing the leader of the opposition was inviting the house to defeat the government, to which the leader of the opposition quite properly replied that he was doing nothing of the kind, and that we should be only too delighted if the government saw fit to accept this motion and to vote for it.
I should be fair to the Prime Minister, or try to be. The other afternoon I made this same complaint that nothing could be accepted from this side of the house-it was in discussing a rather minor measure-and I must say that the Prime Minister behaved handsomely. He took me up on it. He said no, that was not the case; and in fact my amendment was accepted. It was a rather small matter, and it seems to me perfectly clear now that that was just a momentary relaxation of the rule that nothing at all must come from this side of the house, that nothing must originate except on the other side, and anything from here must be promptly voted down.
I must say that I think the Prime Minister enjoys greatly having a large majority, and I have no doubt that we all would. It is pleasant to see him look around the house and survey the serried ranks; and this afternoon he issued a kind of trumpet call at the end of his speech, saying that he hoped all those who supported him would vote with him. Really, that seemed to me to be a pure waste of words because there is little indication that there will ever be any doubt on that question.
But the Prime Minister gave another reason for refusing to accept this amendment this afternoon; and that reason was, if I may say so with proper deference to the Prime Minister, a most preposterous reason. As to accepting this amendment which suggests that the question of Senate reform might be presented to the government for discussion at the. forthcoming dominion-provincial constitutional conference, the Prime
Senate Reform
Minister took an extremely high line and said that to do that would be to break faith with the provinces. I was a little bit startled when he used the words "break faith" because the Prime Minister on the whole uses words accurately, and breaking faith is not a charge that one likes to level hastily and carelessly at anybody. As I say, I was startled when I read the moderate wording of this resolution, but I was much more than startled-I was completely flabbergasted- when I examined the documents and found out that the Prime Minister was wholly and absolutely wrong in his suggestion, and that it was far from being a matter of breaking of faith. Incidentally I should say that I think the Prime Minister realized later on that to say it was a matter of breaking faith was going a bit far and he used different language; he said something to the effect that it would not be quite within the spirit of the negotiations which had taken place between the dominion and the provinces.
Let us have a look at that. Let me first of all read a short extract from an article written some little time since, but since last January, by Senator Lambert, which article begins with these words:
During the dominion-provincial constitutional conference held in Ottawa last January, particular reference was made to the Senate by Hon. Angus L. Macdonald of Nova Scotia.
He said that the sections in the B.N.A. Act dealing with the Senate were "of importance to the provinces no less than to the dominion." He contended that before any change in those sections could be effected, the consent of seven provinces out of ten would be essential to any proposed amendments by the dominion.
And I read on:
The agenda for the meeting of the official representatives of the dominion and the provinces next autumn to discuss further ways and means of amending the B.N.A. Act should certainly contain an item relating to Senate reform.
And reading further on, he says:
That is why the recent remarks of Hon. Wishart Robertson, the government leader in the Senate... have been attracting some attention throughout the country.
And again he says:
In his reply now recorded in Hansard, and widely reported at the time in the Canadian press, Senator Robertson said that he was not interested so much in the headlines of the newspapers as he was in the effective performance of the duties of the Senate.
But do not let me rely wholly on an article written by Senator Lambert, although he is a responsible person and, I understand, is not many miles removed from the confidence of the Liberal high command. Let me read an extract from a speech made by Mr. St. Laurent himself last January at the conference, from which I read briefly as follows.

Senate Reform
In answer to a question by Mr. Macdonald of Nova Scotia, at page 76 he is reported as follows:
The field really narrows down to these matters whicn afiiect the set-up of the central authority.
Then I skip a little bit and go on:
For instance, those which refer to the Senate and to the representation in the House of Commons are, I think, a part of the Canadian constitution.
And more clearly, he says at page 94:


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Would it be fair to take it, as
a result of our deliberations, that there is no objection raised to entrenching . . .
Then I skip through three or four lines and he says:
... a provision that the representation of the people of a province in the House of Commons would not fall below its representation in the Senate.
In other words, the question of Senate reform was discussed then; and to suggest that that is in some way improper is, I think, so far from the mark that I am amazed at the Prime Minister for ever slipping into such an error.
I will now take just a moment or two to refer to a conception of the duties of the Senate and to the usefulness and possibilities of the Senate which were held in that chamber not so very many years ago, and expressed first of all by Senator Raoul Dandurand who was at one time leader of the Senate in the 1920's, and also some remarks of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen who was leader of the Senate from 1930 to 1935.
I would ask hon. members first of all to note the unanimity of opinion between these two men as to the duties, responsibilities and possibilities of the Senate. Second, I would ask them to note the high and useful conception which they had of the position of the Senate; and further, before I sit down I want to point out that that is not merely an imaginary picture of what should be, but a picture of what has been when the Senate has been properly conducted.
First of all, I shall read from an article in the Queen's university Quarterly. That is a publication which should be much more widely read than it is. Perhaps I may take advantage of this occasion to put in a plug for it. I am reading from page 21 of the issue of the spring of 1950:
In 1922, soon after becoming government leader of the Senate, the late Senator Raoul Dandurand addressed his colleagues on the manner in which, he thought, the Senate should function. Analysing the character and work of the Senate he called for a return to the position of the first sessions of that body when Senators acted like "independent judges". He added, "For my part, I refuse to lead a ministerial party in this chamber; I claim no followers; I shun party discipline and the party
rMr. Macdonnell (Greenwood).]
whip." Later in his career, after the Conservative party victory in 1930, he became leader of the opposition in the Senate. On this occasion he recurred to his statement of 1922 and deprecated the reference to himself by any such title as "leader of the opposition", with its implication of partisanship.
The article goes on:
Similar views have been expressed from time to time by other distinguished Senators. Senator Arthur Meighen, for years the Conservative party leader in the Senate, contributed a brilliant article to Queen's Quarterly in the summer of 1937. In it he emphasized the unique position of the Senate in the Canadian governmental scheme, and declared that the Senate's fundamental basis was that of representing territory as "against arbitrary action of a bare majority" possible in the House of Commons. He pointed out the Senate's supreme obligation to protect racial, political and economic minorities. Like Dandurand, he asserted that the forms of partisanship should be submerged.
And so on. Before I take my seat, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read another extract from the article by Mr. Meighen, because I suggest again that it puts before us in the clearest language the usefulness, the objective which should be before the Senate, and which distinguishes it sharply from this house. He said:
The Senate is worthless if it becomes merely another Commons divided upon party lines and indulging in party debates such as are familiar in the lower chamber session after session. If the Senate ever permits itself to fulfil that function and that alone in the scheme of confederation, then the sooner it is abolished the better. This practice is not to be deprecated in the House of Commons. If we are going to have a democracy, the practice must continue. There have to be parties and party manoeuvres; there have to be conflicts and controversies innumerable in variety and wearisome in length.
Mr. Meighen could speak with some experience about that. I continue:
The great scheme of bringing sections together, letting each see the viewpoint of the other, has to be worked out in the representative chamber. Sometimes we are too impatient and critical of governments in allowing what seems inordinate time for discussion of public business. That discussion is good, but it is not the function of the Senate. Members of the second chamber must get away, lift their minds far from those hard-drawn lines of party, or they cannot serve their country. They have to make up their minds to give every government fair play and not to stand in the way of legislation unless they are convinced it must be defeated on its merits, and that the consequences of failure to defeat it would be serious; nor to stand stubbornly in the path of any government proposal unless it is brought there in their judgment to serve the ends of party by largess in this or some other part of the dominion rather than the true interests cf the nation.
I have no intention of detaining the house longer. I have put before the house these opinions expressed by men who served their country well. Before I take my seat I should like to remind the house-and I hope I do not say this in any partisan sense because it was possible only because both sides

worked at it-of the relationship between this chamber and the Senate in the years 1930 to 1935. Anyone who takes the trouble to look into the matter will find that first of all the Senate was left absolutely free by the then prime minister, Mr. Bennett. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that the reputation of that great man will live when the reputation of many of the detractors who are so fond of picking out little things will not even be a memory of a memory. But anyone who will take the trouble to find out what went on in the Senate between 1930 and 1935 will be convinced that I am right. That was not wholly due to Lord Bennett and Mr. Meighen. It was partly because Senator Dandurand took the same view as I have read here tonight. It was partly also because of course there was much more of equality in numbers in the Senate at that time.
To me there is nothing sadder than to see this body of able men-and there are many able men in the Senate-reduced to the point where in public estimation its reputation I suppose was never so low. That seems to me to be a crying shame. I was glad to hear the leader of the C.C.F. party refer to the obligation of the government. It seems to me a shame that this thing is to be stood over again. It is being stood over for reasons that in my opinion are utterly insubstantial, and the opportunity of doing something to rescue this great institution, before it falls too low, before public opinion reaches the point where it demands that it be done away. with to the great injury of us all, may be lost.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to support the principle of the amendment moved this afternoon by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). There are some points of detail in connection with this motion to which I might take exception, but I agree with its spirit and principle, and if it comes to a vote, I shall vote for it.
One of the reasons that I support this motion is that I feel a committee which had an opportunity to discuss the place of the Senate in our parliamentary set-up in this latter part of the twentieth century would have a chance to consider the desirability of abolishing the Senate altogether. In my view that is the most desirable and most useful means of reform, and I believe it to be in keeping with the thinking and the wishes of the Canadian people-certainly where I come from.
I am going to come back in a few moments to my argument that the Senate should be
Senate Reform
abolished, but before I do there are two things that I want to say. First I want to say this very clearly. In the minds of all of us, I am sure, there is a clear-cut distinction between the men and women who occupy places in the Senate and the Senate as an institution. As a matter of fact I feel sorry for the hon. gentlemen and ladies in the other place, that they have to take the kind of criticism that is offered; I hope they realize that it is criticism of the institution and not of themselves as individuals. I was counting up some days ago, and I believe there are about eighteen members in the Senate at the present time who were members of the House of Commons when I first came here eight years ago. In other words they are persons whom I got to know fairly well, and for whom I have a high regard. The same is true for others who were there before I came here and whom I have met in other ways.
So I wish to make it clear that, for my part-and I am sure all hon. members feel this way-when I criticize the Senate as an institution and when I voice feelings of disrespect and even ridicule felt by people in Canada, it casts no reflection upon the individuals of the Senate themselves.
Another thing I wish to do just now is to deal with two of the points at any rate-there might have been a third, but I did not make a note of it-raised by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) this afternoon in his objection to this amendment. In the first place he objected to it on the ground that it was a gilded pill. His argument was that no matter how one might dress it up, an amendment to a motion to go into committee of supply was a motion of non-confidence, which had as its purpose-perhaps, he said, its fundamental purpose-the defeat of the government.
I wish to remind the Prime Minister that at least once within the memories of many of us in the house we had an occasion when an amendment to a motion to go into supply was carried by the house, the carrying of which did not involve the defeat of the government. That happened on August 27, 1948, in connection with an amendment related to the subsidy on milk. Hon. members from all sides of the house spoke in support of the amendment, whereupon the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) rose in his place and said that, so far as the government was concerned, they were willing that a free vote be taken. After that a vote was taken and the amendment carried; but the Minister of Trade and Commerce then got to his feet and, relying upon citation 489 in Beauchesne's second edition, again moved that Mr. Speaker leave the chair for the house to go into committee of supply.

Senate Reform
The whole procedure was perfectly in order. The life of the government was not at stake at all. On the other hand the house did express itself with regard to a principle. The same can happen with respect to this motion today. All the government needs to do is to say that this is a principle concerning which they would like to have an expression of the views of the house. The motion could carry and then a minister could rise immediately and, relying on the citation to which I have referred, could move again that we go into committee of supply.
I think that precedent must not be forgotten, because it is a very clear one. In view of the fact that this is one of the very few ways in which the opposition can call upon the house to vote in respect of ideas or principles which we feel should be considered, I think the government should refrain from this constant referring to it as a case of non-confidence, and simply calling upon its supporters to vote it down on that basis, without any consideration of the merits of the proposal.
The other argument the Prime Minister advanced this afternoon was that to pass a motion such as this to set up a committee to discuss Senate reform, before the dominion-provincial conference holds its further meetings, would be a case of breaking faith with the provincial governments. I wish to point out first of all that the Prime Minister himself in reading from the relevant documents this afternoon indicated that what that conference is dealing with is methods of amending the constitution, not with subject matter. This has nothing to do with the methods of amending the constitution. Rather, this is a subject matter which some of us in the house feel should be considered.
May I also point out to the Prime Minister that no less a person than the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) on March 10 of this year took the very opposite position to that taken this afternoon by the Prime Minister. That was the occasion when the Minister of National Health and Welfare was asking the house to set up a committee on old age security, upon which occasion he said, as reported at page 643 of Hansard:
As we approach these discussions with the provinces, it will be helpful for us to have the considered views of all the parties in this house, of organized labour, of industry, of representative social welfare organizations, and of other interested groups in our population, who have given study through the years to the important question of old age security. I believe that in the formulation of a policy nothing could be more desirable before we finally meet the provinces, than to take the organized labour groups of this country into our confidence through this committee, as well as the farmers and other organizations.
I think that attitude and that approach will commend itself to all hon. members.


Mr. Marlin:: Surely there is a difference in the kind of conference to which I was there directing attention, and the kind of conference to which the Prime Minister was referring. The conference to which he referred is one in which constitutional questions are involved. That to which I referred was a question involving financial considerations in which the jurisdictions of both federal and provincial governments were involved. I submit that, upon reconsideration, my hon. friend will realize that there is no analogy between the two situations at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder who is trying to do the gilding now. After all, the situations are exactly analogous in this respect, that in both cases we have matters of joint concern to the dominion and the provinces. In the one case the Minister of National Health and Welfare says, "Before we meet the provinces it would be a good idea to have a committee so that the government will know the views of parliament." Meantime provincial governments are no doubt getting the views of their legislatures on the question.
Similarly, in respect of ways of amending the constitution, I can imagine that many provincial governments are getting the views of their provincial legislatures on these constitutional matters before they meet the dominion government in a further session of the dominion-provincial conference.
I think that after all the government has some responsibility to parliament. It should know what parliament thinks about issues of this kind before it meets the provinces, just as the Minister of National Health and Welfare put it in connection with old age security. And even if the minister had not laid down the principle as well as he did, I suggest the idea would commend itself to hon. members that there is merit in the federal government getting the views of parliament before it meets the provinces, rather than waiting until after the die has been cast.


Mr. Martin:: I would remind the hon.
member of the inconsistency of the position he now takes. On that occasion he opposed the setting up of a committee, but now he is in favour of setting one up.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I opposed the setting up of a committee, but I did not oppose parliament's discussing and taking action on the question of old age security; in fact I urged that that be done without the delay involved in holding sessions of a committee. On the other hand, what the Prime Minister is trying to do now is to prevent parliament's discussing, in whatever way it may choose, this question of

Senate reform, on the ground that that would be breaking faith with the provinces. I suggest the Minister of National Health and Welfare should have made his interjections when the Prime Minister was speaking, and should have set him on the right track.
To get around to the substance of the amendment by the leader of the opposition, I said at the outset that I believe the reform of the Senate most needed is its abolition altogether. I feel that the idea of a second chamber came out of a period in the forward development of the democratic idea, when people believed in democracy and believed in their elected representatives speaking for them, but were not quite sure and were not quite prepared to go all the way.
So, carrying over the idea that was in existence in the United Kingdom with respect to a House of Lords, which was made up of persons not elected by the people, the fathers of confederation agreed to have its counterpart here in Canada, namely, the Senate, which would be appointed rather than elected by the people.
In my view our thinking as to the validity of the democratic way has moved on considerably since 1867, and it is time now that the whole of our parliamentary set-up was on an elected basis, so that everyone in parliament would be directly responsible to the people.
That may suggest to some that the thing to do with the Senate is simply to put it on an elected rather than an appointed basis. If you do that, what you have done is to provide, shall I say, two Houses of Commons to discuss the same legislation. It seems to me that you would have a duplication of effort that would be completely unnecessary. I want to say again that so far as I am concerned anything that I say casts no reflection on the persons in the Senate. I do not even deny the fact that many of them deserve something from this country for the services they have rendered in public life. I would say that many of them probably deserve a pension of some kind for the services they have rendered in various ways, but that has nothing to do with the institution in which they are now functioning.
It is sometimes argued that it is desirable to have a second house to provide a check on hasty legislation passed in the one house. Experience has shown clearly that not since the early twenties has there been any tendency at all on the part of the other place to impose any check on the House of Commons. They are not performing that function at all. As a matter of fact things in this parliament have got to the place where what we are concerned about is not this House of Commons
55946-1761	: |
Senate Reform
being checked by the Senate but the government being responsible to this House of Commons. That is the checking job that is on our hands in this generation, maintaining the concept of responsible government.
We are getting to the place where the government thinks that once it is elected at the polls it has a free hand to carry on as it wishes until the next election. It has been said a number of times on the floor of this house that the government is responsible directly to the people. Actually the government is responsible to parliament, and primarily responsible to that section of parliament elected by the people. That is the job we should be applying ourselves to. Any notion that the Senate provides any check has been ruled out, and our job is to make sure that we in this House of Commons provide the necessary check on the government, and that is a task for members of all parties in this house.
Any suggestion that the Senate provides protection for minorities, racial, religious, provincial or regional, is gone completely when the Senate is made up of an overwhelming majority on one political side as is the case at the present time. The best way to get a voice to speak for any particular group that feels it is a minority, that feels that its voice should be heard, is to have that voice raised in this House of Commons where members know they have the authority of being elected and can therefore speak more freely and more forcibly than is the case in the other place. I know that some of those hon. gentlemen over there whom we know and to whom we sometimes talk feel that way about it; they know that they have no authority to speak on behalf of the people such as we have simply because they have not been elected.
It seems to me that these things should be very thoroughly considered. I have made my position clear, that I think that times have changed and the point has been reached where we no longer need a second chamber. That is one of the things that a committee of this kind could discuss, namely the abolition of the Senate altogether. If that committee did not agree with me and did not go all the way I would go, a discussion of these mat-' ters would produce at least some measure of reform. It is clear from the experience that all of us have had in this House of Commons that it is difficult for any member of the opposition, indeed for any private member on either side of the house, to introduce any proposition substantive in character and get it put through this House of Commons. The best he can do is to get it considered by a committee.
If anyone moved a motion for a specific brand of Senate reform, if anyone moved a

Senate Reform
motion for the abolition of the Senate, it would stand no chance of being passed. Government members would get up and say that we could not discuss such a proposition on the spur of the moment because it was the sort of thing that should be considered in committee. Here is a chance to refer this whole question, and an important one it is, to a committee to have it gone into thoroughly.
I was interested in some of the quotations that were read during the debate this afternoon by those who spoke and again this evening by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), indicating the way in which this whole question has been tossed about across the years. One of the reasons why the Senate is the butt of so much critical comment is that Senate reform has been toyed with the way it is. It is now nearly thirty years since Mr. King was a young crusader for Senate reform, both in this house and out on the hustings. I have in my hand Hansard of July 19, 1924, where Mr. King is reported on page 4872 as having said:
Mr. Speaker, having in mind the action of the second chamber with respect to the measure which has just been amended and also the fate of a number of bills adopted by the Commons and defeated in the Senate. I think hon. members will agree with me that the time has come when the Commons in Canada should seek to gain rights and privileges with respect to legislation originating in this chamber similar to those which have been obtained by the House of Commons in the parliament at Westminster. I may say that the government had under consideration, prior to the opening of this session, legislation with this end in view, but we were anxious the public should feel fully convinced of the necessity before pressing it on the attention of parliament. Hon. members will recall that at the close of the last session, and at the close of the preceding session, bills which were passed by this house and which touched matters that are very vital to the electorate failed of enactment owing to the action of the Senate. This year we have instances of bills that have passed this house in three separate sessions of parliament, and which have been rejected each time by the second chamber. I think we owe it to the people of our country with respect to laws demanded by the electorate to see to the supremacy in parliament of the elective chamber. I desire to assure the house that when parliament re-assembles steps will be taken by the government to obtain, if possible, means whereby bills may be enacted by and with the advice and consent of the House of Commons under conditions similar in principle to those which have been sanctioned for the parliament of the United Kingdom.
No one would seek to suggest what was in Mr. King's mind, but I imagine that he had in mind that at least we could get away from the situation where the Senate has a permanent veto which it can exercise year in and year out, ad infinitum, over legislation of the House of Commons, and get to the position they had at Westminster where the House of Lords could do it only so many times-the number having been reduced from time to time since then. But even that measure

of reform, if that is what Mr. King had in mind away back in the early twenties, is still not implemented in this country.
The hon. member for Greenwood had something to say about the pledges that were taken by Mr. King from those that he put into the Senate back in those years. I should like to quote what I think is an interesting excerpt from Hansard of January 12, 1926, page 105. The speaker on that occasion was Mr. C. W. Bell, who was listed as the member for West Hamilton. He said:
Not only the members of this house but the country will remember that the Prime Minister-
The reference there was to Mr. King.
-in the last three and a half years has always declared his intention of effecting great reforms for the purpose of remedying the various ills from which this dominion has been suffering. But he has consistently given, as two great obstacles to this objective, the obstruction of the Senate and the influence of the Progressive party.
The party which he later absorbed.
He made the statement from many a platform that upon his return to parliament one of the first things he would undertake would be Senate reform of such character that the upper house would be no longer in a position to render legislation futile. And speaking in London-
That was at London, Ontario, on October 16, 1925.
-on October 16 last he made a statement which, if it is not known to every member of the house and to every man and woman in the country, ought certainly to be very well known. In the hockey arena in that city on the date I mentioned he said:
''Only a few days ago a number of Senators were appointed. Every one has given me his pledged word he will be prepared, once a measure passes the Commons, to give it his support. Subsequent Senators will be appointed with that understanding, and as Providence takes away a few of the older members, you will have a Senate pledged to bring about the reforms for which the administration stands."
Well, Providence has done its part since that date but the Liberal party has not kept pace. A little later the questions, to which the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) referred, were asked. I would ask the indulgence of the house to refer to them again. These were questions by Mr. Evans and they appear in Hansard for February 16, 1927, at page 355. Let me read them:


Mr. Evans:: 1. What is the form or wording of
the pledge, if any, taken from those who have been appointed senators during the last two years with a view to Senate reform?
2. How many have been thus pledged?


Right Hon.   Mr. Mackenzie King@: 1. An assurance of support of such measure of Senate reform, in conformity with the requirements of the constitution, as may be introduced by the Liberal administration.
2. This assurance has been given by all who have accepted appointment to the Senate within the time mentioned.

As the hon. member for Greenwood indicated, in 1948, I placed on the order paper questions similar to those asked by Mr. Evans away back in 1927, but I was unable to get as specific an answer as the then prime minister, Mr. King, had given on that occasion. He did indicate that he recalled having obtained pledges of Senate reform in those years from every member he appointed but he could not quite remember just when he discontinued the practice.
So far as Mr. King is concerned, it is pretty clear that his crusading spirit for Senate reform vanished as the number of Liberals in the Senate increased. I hope that the overpowering number of Liberals that the present government has in the other place will not prevent the present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) from taking up the crusade for at least a measure of Senate reform if he cannot go all the way with me for its abolition. Here is another example of how this matter has been toyed with from time to time. On June 4, 1926, as found in Hansard of that year at page 4030, there appears this excerpt:
On the orders of the day:


Arthur Meighen: May I ask the Prime Minister if there is to be any action taken this session with respect to Senate reform? If not, when is the next move to be made in this direction and of what character?


Mr. Jacobs:: At the next sitting of the house.


Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King (Prime Minister) :: I might say to my right hon. friend that the government would not like to prolong the session unduly in introducing the subject of Senate reform at this stage. My right hon. friend may be sure it will come up in due course.
In June, 1926, Mr. King did not want to prolong the session unduly to deal with Senate reform. It was to be dealt with in due course. Mr. King's period as prime minister has gone and Senate reform still remains to be carried through. The rest of the quotation is as follows:


Arthur Meighen: I should like to know further, if
it is the intention of the government to call a provincial conference on the subject this summer.


James Horace King: I will not say just when
but no doubt a conference will be held.


Arthur Meighen: Before another session?


James Horace King: I would not say as to that.
Any who were here in the days of Mr. King will recognize the authenticity of the remarks that I have quoted. My whole point in reading these few excerpts is to indicate the way in which the question of Senate reform has been toyed with down through the years. I think as a matter of fact that members of the Senate could get up from time to time-in that other place- on a question of privilege and complain about the way in which this whole question has been played with. They have it coming
Senate Reform
to them that the matter be taken seriously, and even though I may go further than the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has indicated in his amendment, I certainly think that the house should go at least that far, should appoint this committee and have the matter investigated. I think we owe it to ourselves, to the Canadian people, and as I have already said, to the senators themselves.
Let me conclude by reading one other quotation. When I have read it I think there will be really nothing more to say. It is taken from Hansard of January 22, 1935, at page 102. I will indicate later who the speaker was. I would rather read the quotation first. It reads:
I believe it was the leader of the opposition who raised the discussion concerning the Senate. I am making reference to all these points because I believe one would do better to put his finger on the spot where the sand may be put into the machinery.
I hear someone saying that he already knows who it is.
The right hon. gentleman has said that we have a Tory Senate. If I gather anything from the temper of the Canadian people, and if it is the policy of the Senate to put sand into the machinery, then we will have to reform the Senate. The time has long since passed when the Senate should be used as unemployment insurance for many of those in political life.
The speaker on that occasion has had something to do with unemployment insurance since then, for he was none other than the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell). I suggest that we may not always agree with him now in some of the things he says, but certainly the statement that he made over in this corner of the house some fifteen years ago is very much to the point. If I may say so again, Mr. Speaker, I think it is unfair to the ladies and gentlemen in that other place as persons, that cracks like these can be made about them, that the Senate can be referred to as a scheme of unemployment insurance for some of those in political life. People who have served this country in public life for many years have some consideration coming to them, and I would say not just in the form of material assistance or pensions. They have coming to them the right to continue to serve the country in useful positions but let us not do the derogatory thing we are doing to them at the present time by simply putting them into an institution for which the country has, as the hon. member for Greenwood said, perhaps less respect now than has ever been the case.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I say again that for my part I think the time has come in the development of our democratic institutions when there should be no portion of parliament that is not responsible to the electorate directly. Therefore I think we do not need

Senate Reform
the Senate at all. It should be abolished. But surely we cannot do less than to take the course that has been suggested by the leader of the opposition in his amendment, pass it, have this committee set up and get to work discussing this important question, and not leave it for another twenty-five or thirty years as has been the case already. As I sit down I remind the government that to pass the amendment does not defeat the government; that will come in due course. It would mean the setting up of the proposed committee but it would also mean, on the basis of citation 489, that the government could immediately move that we go again into committee of supply.
(Translation):


Mr. Pierre Gauthier (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, an institution should continue to exist as long as it serves a useful purpose. It may be that some hon. members, like the One who has just resumed his seat, would be in favour of abolishing the Senate sooner or later, but they have not dared to say so openly. Ever since I became a member I have noticed that the matter of Senate reform has been mentioned quite often in debates in this chamber as well as outside the house. Some of those debates have shed some degree of light on this question which always attracts considerable attention.
In rising to take part in this debate, I have no intention of striking a fatal blow to the motion moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). However, as regards the upper house, where French-speaking members have so often distinguished themselves, I feel duty bound if not to rise to its defence at least to bring forth some arguments in favour of its existence, of its survival.
Since I both think and act democratically, I believe that the Senate, though its members, unlike those of the House of Commons, do not have to stand for election, nevertheless keeps an open, attentive and practised eye on the various problems considered in this house. Even though some senators are no longer young, we must recognize that they have indeed acquired some experience. That, in my opinion, counts for a great deal in a man's life. May I refer to a few words spoken by a great American industrialist, Henry Ford, who said something to this effect:
The best salary I have ever received is experience and I believe it is the most commendable thing in the world. It is something no one can take away from me.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that when a mem-Der has spent fifteen or twenty years in this house as democratic representative of a constituency of his province, of his country, he

has acquired some experience, a way of seeing things. He can also much better understand the economic, political, social and even religious problems which are fairly often brought to our attention. Too often, we hear the time-worn argument that the Senate is a body made up of people with one foot in the grave. Even if some senators are elderly, they nevertheless retain that alertness of mind that is found in younger persons. Besides, we must remember that certain members of the upper house, such as Senators Dandurand, Meighen and Beland, who had reached an advanced age, have made a very useful and commendable contribution not only to the Canadian nation but to the House of Commons.
If hon. members made it a point of finding out what goes on in the other place, they would see that during every session a great many issues are discussed in the various Senate committees, which proves the great usefulness of that hon. chamber and serves to justify its existence. The discussions that take place in those committees are important and useful enough to establish the necessity of the Senate's existence, even if its members are not elected.
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying a moment ago, a member of parliament who, for fifteen or twenty years has been a representative of the people, acquires a certain experience. I do not intend to pose as the Senate's defender, but if I put forward my views concerning it, it is not because I feel myself growing old, since after twenty-three years I am still full of the will and desire to fight. I believe that very often derogatory remarks are made concerning the other place. This subject should be approached, however, by really facing up to the problem.
There is no doubt that the point at issue is whether the Senate is useful and whether there is any justification for its existence. To prove it, we have but to listen to the proceedings of a committee of the other place on the rights and privileges of the human being. We would then see how exhaustively a matter which will eventually be submitted to this house is being discussed.
As far as that question of human rights is concerned-and it has been discussed even in the United Nations-I have followed with much interest and attention the work of the Senate committee. We can, I believe, hope that these deliberations will be of some use to us and that we will eventually benefit from them.
Besides, in every human being there is a phenomenon of a psychological nature that

makes him perfectible. As the Senate is itself made up of human beings, it is also perfectible, and even though some of its members are old, they are not less intelligent for it. If the situation need be improved in so far as the Senate is concerned, I believe that this house should undertake a more thorough discussion of this question.
The motion of the hon. leader of the opposition, in the terms in which it has been actually moved, might have the merit of initiating such discussion, but it should not be carried by this house. I go on record as opposing the resolution, not only to answer the bid of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), who has urged us to oppose it, but also as a member of the Liberal party, which leaves us with our freedom of action and allows us to express our mind openly. I am of opinion that the motion is a little too premature and should be given the six months' hoist. We must all be confident that the Senate will continue to fulfil its basic function and prove its usefulness.
I have here a letter signed by Mr. Paul de Martigny, published in La Patrie. It concerns the Senate indirectly. It is about people who are pensioned off. Many members and many Canadian taxpayers want an age limit for senators. Let them listen carefully to what I am about to read and they will see that such a request is interesting for those who are not so old, but not such a good thing for those who have reached a certain age. I quote:
A man who is being retired is not very cheerful the day he bids his fellow workers farewell. Why? If you want to know, read what someone wrote to me.
Retirement means the end of the struggle for a living and brings the assurance that one will not be left in need. That is much better than being let out on the street. It also means, however, that one is retired from active life and put with the has-beens. After having counted as something for a long time, one becomes nothing. For forty years, half a century, if you like, someone has been a cog in the big machinery of society. Then, on the grounds that this cog is old, it is put aside. Not very pleasant for the party concerned.
I know, of course, that there is the other side of the picture: freedom after the long enslavement of work under conditions that sometimes proved very difficult. It is the end of each day's stupendous effort. But once the task is done, does the memory of it rankle the next day? Of course not, because people realize that life itself is made up of such little hardships which are as old as time. As we advance in years our eyes are opened, our illusions vanish, and we finally understand that life, seen at close hand, is not always beautiful.
At any rate, it is not as beautiful as the long-anticipated retirement which gradually comes closer and closer until one day it is at hand and it does not look so promising as before. Above all there is the
Senate Reform
realization that tomorrow we may no longer be of any use. Retirement is like the beginning of a long unending regret.
The more fortunate is not the retired man, it is the one who is not yet retired. It is the fellow worker struck by death at his work, like a soldier in the thick of the battle, weapons in hand.
What good is it to drag out the monotonous and useless life of the retired man?
What good is it to hark back to the same old stores of a past for which nobody cares? That is. why the wise thinks twice before he asks for his retirement. To quit the daily task, however great the effort required, is like getting away from reality, so meagre, so hard though it may be. It is acting like the dog of the good man Lafontaine, who left its prey for a shadow.
Mr. Speaker, it is another psychological phenomenon when a man has worked hard all his life for society he finds one day that he has no longer any soul, that his services are no longer required, that he is considered 'too old to take .part in public affairs.
We only need to look around us, not only in Canada but throughout the world, to see men over seventy who are still very active and who can bring into the discussion of public affairs the contribution of a valuable experience.
I need only mention the former prime minister of Great Britain, the Right. Hon. Winston Churchill, who, despite his seventy-five years, displays an extraordinarily keen mind during the Commons debates and the British elections. Thus the argument that the Senate is made up of men who are too old is worthless.
Besides, I believe the amendment was moved for the sole purpose of launching some sort of a debate and finding out the members' views on the matter.
I do not make these remarks because I have an eye on the other place, or because I want to defend the members of the Senate. I just want to say that the Senate is still a democratic institution, although its members are not elected.
Moreover, I think that the Senate should be protected against the idea, which is becoming generalized, that senators should be elected. To my mind, the Senate is endowed with a certain freedom of action which the elected representatives of the people do not enjoy.
As members of parliament we retain our liberty, but we know that we must sometimes follow public opinion instead of leading it. I remember that when I was still a student at the seminary, a former Quebec premier

Dominion-Provincial Conference told me that men in public life should lead public opinion and not follow it.
I believe that the members of the Senate are in a better position to lead public opinion under the present system than they would be if they were elected.
To those who look to the Senate with some emotion, I shall quote a proverb which I found somewhere and which speaks volumes in this respect:
The hardest thing to do is not to reach the top of the ladder, but to make one's way through the crowd at the bottom.
(Text):



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE TABLING OF FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE WITH PROVINCIAL PREMIERS

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: May I have the consent of the house, Mr. Speaker, to revert to motions for the purpose of tabling correspondence with the premiers concerning the autumn conference, and which was asked for the other day. I promised to see if there had been any further correspondence, and I find that there were three letters from Premier Douglas, with answers, and one from Premier Jones, with the answer. I should like to table that correspondence.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Has
the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) the consent of the house to table the documents to which he has referred?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Fleming:: May I ask the Prime Minister a question concerning the correspondence with the provincial premiers that he has just submitted? Is any provision made on the agenda for discussion of old age pensions or federal aid to education?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The agenda has not yet been determined. We are receiving suggestions from the premiers and those suggestions are being circulated to the premiers of the other provinces for their views as to what should be the form of the agenda.


George Alexander Drew: Then I take it, from what the Prime Minister has said, that there is nothing to prevent the agenda including what was suggested by the premier of Nova Scotia that there should be a full discussion of appropriate changes in the Senate.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not know whether there will be any discussion of changes in the Senate. It is a financial conference; and I would imagine, with respect to the question-
[Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf).l


George Alexander Drew: It is a constitutional conference.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No. There are two conferences. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) knows that as well as I do. There is a constitutional conference that has been adjourned and which is to deal with the proposal to seek an amendment of the constitution that would allow other amendments to be made here in Canada. Then there is a general conference, which is the conference that was promised at the last conference, to take place at least one year before the expiry of the agreements that have now been entered into with eight provinces. That is the one with respect to which I am tabling correspondence this evening. To further answer the question asked by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), I imagine that we shall be considering the best possible use to which all revenues raised by the various levels of government from the Canadian people can be expended on behalf of the Canadian people.


George Alexander Drew: Through you, Mr. Speaker, may I ask if it is not so, that the agenda is wide open for the consideration of any subjects that are regarded as appropriate by the government of the Dominion of Canada and of the provinces?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes; provided there is agreement between the premiers of the provinces and the government of Canada that it should be included in the agenda.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask whether these various documents are just being tabled or whether the Prime Minister asked that they be appended to Hansard? The previous correspondence with the premiers was printed.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think the previous correspondence was printed as an appendix to Hansard; and if it is the desire of hon. members that that should be done, I think that you, Mr. Speaker, might so direct. That would apply to the correspondence concerning this conference.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Is it
the pleasure of the house that these documents be printed as an appendix to Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(For the text of correspondence, see Appendix A, page 2793)



FLOOD CONDITIONS


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I should like to table a copy of a message sent to the lieutenant governor of

Manitoba, through the governor general, on behalf of His Majesty, expressing his sympathy with the victims of the recent disaster; also a message from Queen Juliana of The Netherlands to the lieutenant governor of Manitoba, forwarded through the governor general's office; and a copy of a telegram, and my answer thereto, from the prime minister of Malta, also expressing the sympathy of the people of those islands with the victims of this disaster.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will these messages, particularly the message from His Majesty, be printed?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There can be no objection to that. If it is the desire of hon. members that the text of the messages on behalf of His Majesty and the Queen, on behalf of the queen of the Netherlands and of the prime minister of Malta be printed as an appendix to Hansard, perhaps Mr. Speaker could direct that that be done.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Is it
the pleasure of the house that these documents be printed as an appendix to Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(For text of messages, see Appendix B, page 2795).



SENATE REFORM

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Fournier (Hull) for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew.
Mr. J. J. Smith (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, there are a few observations that I should like to make on the amendment that is now before the house. I listened to the mover of the amendment, and I may say that I enjoyed the address he read to the house this afternoon. In fact, I had read much of the substance in it previously in Maclean's magazine, Saturday Night and other magazines, and I enjoyed it at that time. I may say that I agree with many of the things that were said.
As to reform of the Senate, I think possibly that is essential for the reason that among the people of Canada there is a strong feeling that the Senate is not filling the bill; that is, that it is not giving service commensurate with the money that is spent on it. When we speak of that matter, I think possibly we should take a look around home first of all and clean up our own backyard; because when it comes to the matter of money being spent for loafing, and days being spent in doing nothing, we have a good deal of it right here.
Senate Reform
I agree with many of the things that have been said about the matter, but I cannot agree with the amendment because of the way in which it comes before the house. If that amendment had come in as a private motion, it would then have given to hon. members supporting the government an opportunity to vote for it. It may be said that they can support it anyway. But I do not think that any of the people who elected me on June 27, including many who are Conservatives, expect me to get up and support an amendment when by doing so it amounts to a vote of non-confidence in the government which I support. I think the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), who moved the motion, will agree that we do not intend to do that and that it is not the right thing for us to do; and I at least give the hon. member who seconded the motion, the member for Lake Centre, credit for having intelligence enough not to expect us to do this. For that reason, I am not going to discuss the amendment much longer. I think that possibly a committee to study this matter would be a good thing. Many things might be done. We might give them more to do. We could possibly have a limit on the age of the senators and they would have a purpose which they could fulfil, in examining the things that go on in this house. For instance, they could examine estimates, and so on, and it would not be necessary to set up royal commissions; they could do this if necessary. I listened with interest to the speech of the leader of the C.C.F. party and also to the other hon. members of that party. I have listened to their policies along these lines for many years. I heard the same speeches about ten years ago. I will not say whether I agree with them or not. Possibly there may be something in doing away with the Senate. For the last few years I have not heard these same statements from many members of the C.C.F. party because I believe when they got into power in Saskatchewan and they were gaining ground here they thought they might be able to use the Senate. Now that they will never have a chance to get into power here they are not interested in having a Senate at all.
As I say, I agree with some of the arguments that we should have a committee to investigate this matter, but I do not think that even the mover and the seconder of the amendment would expect the government supporters to be stupid enough to vote against the government's motion.


Mr. W. F. Carroll (Inverness-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I am against doing away with the Senate of Canada. I am in favour of any reform that can be made in the Senate which
2788

Senate Reform
will be for the public good and for the government of this country. It does seem to me that the great cry that went up against the Senate in years gone by was on occasions when the Senate and the House of Commons were of a different political complexion.
My memory takes me back to 1897 or 1898 * when the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier passed an act in this house for the construction of a railway into the Yukon Territory. At the time every businessman in the country was against it. When it went to the Senate, which was a Conservative Senate, it was killed. If there was anything the Senate of Canada ever did to justify its existence it was the killing of the bill for the construction of a railway into the Yukon Territory. Then there was a great howl, among people with whom I have been affiliated for years, against the Senate. That died out in a few years' time and the businessmen of this country impressed upon the government of the day the inequity of building a road into the Yukon Territory.
There comes to my mind another occasion in 1912. Sir Robert Borden came into power in 1911. Sir Wilfrid Laurier's government had a plan to build a navy in this country under the control of the Dominion of Canada. When Sir Robert Borden came into power something had to be done, in the opinion of his government, and a bill was introduced in the House of Commons for the purpose of giving to Great Britain a tremendous lot of money to build naval ships. These naval ships were to be built in the old land and were to be controlled by the British Admiralty. That matter was discussed in this house without anybody having a wink of sleep from twelve o'clock on a Monday until twelve o'clock the following Saturday. During that debate the rules of closure were brought into the house. Finally the bill was passed in the house and it went to the Senate. At that time there happened to be a Liberal Senate and they turned down the bill. In my opinion that was the second time that the Senate of Canada justified its existence. There was quite a howl for a year or so from our Conservative friends on the matter of Senate reform.
I rather agree with the gentleman who spoke a while ago. I think charity should begin at home, and that we should do something about reforming this very house along certain lines, and that is something over which we have jurisdiction. But at the same time, as I said a moment ago, if there is any way of doing anything to the Senate that will make for better government in this country for the whole of Canada, then I am in favour

of it. But I do not think I have heard anything in the speeches so far that would convince me that it is necessary to reform the Senate along certain lines.
First of all, in regard to reforming the Senate, there has to be an amendment to the British North America Act before it can be done. We may pass all the resolutions we like in this house; we may say we are going in for reform of the Senate, but unless the Senate agrees, there is no constitutional power which will make them agree to anything that we do in this house, and that is proper.
The British North America Act contains the constitution of this country; it contains the constitution under which the Senate is organized in this country. Until the British North America Act is amended, or there is some understanding between the various provinces, the House of Commons and the Senate, it is useless to talk about Senate reform.
I do not like to hear people say anything derogatory about the Senate. I do not think anything derogatory was said about senators as such, but I have heard it said in the past. So far as calibre of governing and intellect are concerned, the calibre of the Senate from 1867 down to the present time compares very favourably with the membership in this House of Commons. It is true that Usually men a little older are sent to the Senate than most members who come into the House of Commons; but some years ago a very good rule was adopted. I do not think it is a rule, but it has become a custom that persons shall not be appointed to the Senate after they have passed their sixtieth birthday. Having regard to the death rate in this country in the past, few of them survive after their seventy-fifth birthday. Therefore, unless the life expectancy of people in this country is greatly extended, it is hardly necessary to insist that senators should get out when they reach seventy-five because they will not be there.
As I said, I am against the idea that we should do away with the Senate. As an institution it is something of which we should be proud. It is an institution that has done great work in this country. Since I came to the house the last time the thing that has struck me forcibly is that there has been a great reform in the Senate itself. I was in this house from 1911 on, 1917, 1921 and 1925. Rarely in those days was anything initiated in the Senate. I had not followed events from 1925 up until a year ago. I noticed that in this parliament a great deal of important legislation has had its initiation in the Senate, and when it comes to this house and goes into committee we can look back on the records

of the Senate committees and find out exactly what happened there, and it materially helps the work of this house.
Coming back again to the calibre of the Senate, I do not know whether I can point to people in this house who have any more ability to govern this country down through the years-I mean from the comparative standpoint-than the members who occupy Senate seats. I suppose that in this house we have men, including myself, of very poor calibre. We occasionally do have men who perhaps are not fully qualified in the matter of government. The same thing happens in the Senate-and that is not anything against the Senate.
Another point in favour of the Senate is that appointments are made to that body first because of business ability and secondly because they have had a good deal to do with government before their appointment to that body. Let me say-and I am not looking for a senatorship; if one were offered to me tomorrow I would not accept it-that I think it has been a good principle followed by both of the major parties to pick for seats in the Senate those who have had experience in government on the floor of the House of Commons. That is all to the good, so far as the Senate is concerned.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that I have completed all I wish to say.


James Arthur Ross: I was paired with the right hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I was paired with the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Macdonald). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.



FLOOD CONDITIONS

Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, what I have to say perhaps might have been better said on motions when the

Manitoba Flood
Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) made his statement on the flood situation, but I am almost certain that I would have been out of order. Therefore I have deferred making any statement until now. I want to tell those who are interested of those things which I actually saw, of those things of which I have firsthand information, but above all of thole things which I have felt, which I have lived through having worked with people who today are suffering in desolation and helplessness.
When I came to this country nineteen years ago I landed at the port of Halifax. _ The immigration officer who examined my goods and effects asked me for what city I was bound and I said, "Winnipeg." He said, "I am glad to hear that because I have just come from there. I have spent some of the happiest years of my life in that city and I have a great affection for it." That is an affection which I myself have found growing over the years. But today there is something more than affection, there is admiration for a city and for a people which ties me to them with bonds that cannot be broken. I have seen heroism, not the heroism of a sudden deed of derring-do or the heroism of some act of gallantry which leaves one almost aghast, but the heroism of people who were down and never knew what it was to be out, the heroism of people who, when they could scarcely lift another limb, nevertheless found within themselves the physical and spiritual strength to fight the encroachment of the river.
I am going to speak of Winnipeg not because I wish to slight any other area, far from it, but because I know what happened there. I am quite sure that what I say of Winnipeg and its people can be applied to every other area which has been afflicted by floods. Therefore the house will understand why I limit my remarks. Yet I know of the case of a farmer, a man near Ste. Agathe, who finally was compelled to surrender to the river, who at the last moment took his wife and children out in a truck leaving behind him about 8,000 bushels of grain, some 200 hogs which even then were strung along the wires squealing madly, leaving his horses and livestock, the last sounds in his ears being the screaming of animals which were doomed to almost certain death. I think of the little poultry rancher near St. Boniface whose whole livelihood was bound up with 1,700 chickens some seven weeks old, not ready for market. Knowing he could not rescue them he slaughtered them. Being a good citizen and knowing the responsibility he might incur by leaving
fMr. Stewart (Winnipeg North).]
dead poultry lying about and the corruption that might take place, not only did he slaughter them but he also burned them. I think of the market gardeners who have lost everything they had. These things I know only by hearsay but I know them to be correct.
When I landed in Winnipeg it was perhaps natural that I should go to the area where I stay. I found there what I knew of course, that for the second time in two years my wife and I were evacuated. At the worst, however, we find it only somewhat of a nuisance, and certainly only a nuisance compared with the losses which so many others have suffered. What struck Winnipeg was no turbulent flood leaving disaster in its wake such as we saw in the Fraser river valley, but a slow seeping flow of water which it appeared could not be dammed back. It was so slow that the water seemed to have the viscosity of oil and yet it was ruthless and indeed at times, almost frightening in its determination to conquer the city. That is the type of water which prevails of course in so many parts of the flooded areas.
As to the river itself, I have heard estimates that the current was only some seven or eight miles an hour. Yet I know on one occasion when I was out in a dinghy powered with a 12 horsepower outboard motor we were going against the stream and we made scarcely one mile an hour. It is a river with tortuous twists and bends, and being in flood naturally it has taken the shortest course to reach its destination and has swept straight across many sections of the city.
I think the time when our people suffered worst was over two weeks ago when rain started on Friday and continued. Altogether some two inches of rain, snow and sleet fell. It was during those days that heroism really was shown. Men and women would work for as long as seventy-two hours at a stretch without any respite in order to keep the river back. A friend of mine, for instance, the mayor of East Kildonan, who was the Progressive Conservative candidate in the last election, rose on Friday morning at seven o'clock and never saw his bed again until three o'clock on Tuesday morning. That experience was shared by many others, men and women alike.
The same story can be told of what happened in St. Boniface and on the dikes in Norwood. Working on the dikes, before lights were strung along them, was a most

Manitoba Flood
precarious and hazardous task. In some cases the dikes were 14 to 16 feet high and as much as 20 feet deep. Sandbags had to be lugged up the dikes over slippery, slithery, greasy mud. Nobody will ever know how people did not lose their lives by falling into the river which was but 6 inches below the top of the dikes on the other side. It is true some fell in but they were saved. The task of building the dikes almost staggers the imagination. I worked on them in four-hour shifts, and I know the physical condition I was in at the end of four hours. What then must have been the physical condition of those who worked not for hours but for days?
I saw the ramp which the city engineering department built up to the Provencher bridge to maintain communications between St. Boniface and the city of Winnipeg. Not hundreds but thousands of trucks of gravel were carried to this area and dumped there so that a road could be made through the flood. I saw boys and girls working on the dikes. I saw grandfathers and grandmothers working on them, and every age in between. There were nuns who were filling sandbags and building up dikes to save hospitals. I saw one man who was pointed out to me as the best safecracker in western Canada. He was out on bail and was spending every available moment and all his energy in helping to build dikes. Those who were fighting were citizens of all types from professional gamblers to preachers.
Of course there were incidents which struck one forcibly. I remember a case where a truck careened onto a sidewalk and stalled there. It took the people who were there twenty minutes to slap, pummell, and shake the driver of the truck into consciousness. When he came around it was learned that he had been forty-nine hours driving trucks of gravel to the Provencher ramp without any respite. There were other incidents which perhaps had a more humorous aspect, and people were very ready to see the humorous side of things. For instance there was the report which came over the radio station that all mothers and children should evacuate immediately but single girls and able-bodied men should stay behind. Fortunately many people saw the humour of that. Another case, perhaps not so humorous, is that of the man who saw three dead hogs floating near his house. He was determined that he would get rid of them. He tried the best he could but one slipped away from him and unfortunately crashed through the window of his living room, and so far as I know it is still there.


Mr. Bryce:: On the chesterfield.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: As I say I
cannot speak of all parts of the city. Nevertheless I think my knowledge of what happened to one area will give members an idea of the situation. In Elmwood there was a tremendous fight to save the community. Men and women were working on the dikes day and night. They had to be sustained and canteens were set up by the women in homes, stores, community clubs, wherever it could be done, and hot food was taken to those who were working. Eventually it was organized on almost a professional basis. At first neighbours would go around trying to borrow a dozen eggs, some bacon or other meat, or anything which they could use to cook a hot meal. Women who were preparing their Sunday roasts would carve them up, place the dinner on a plate and send it down to the men who were working. EvAitually some two or three thousand meals a day were being served to those who manned the dikes, and all these meals were being cooked in the homes of the people. When I think of meals I must mention the valiant task which the Red Cross and the Salvation Army performed in every neighbourhood. Their work is beyond all praise. Men would be toiling and slaving on the dikes; along would come a truck from the Red Cross with some girls in it serving sandwiches, coffee and cigarettes. Similar aid, of course, was given by the Salvation Army. There were fishermen who came down from Gimli and the little island of Hecla up north in lake Winnipeg. They took their boats over to the mainland, loaded them on trucks and brought them down to help the beleaguered city. Farmers from Dauphin brought their trucks to help. I saw businessmen from Saskatoon who had nothing to offer but their labour; nevertheless they came to give what they had. I think one of the most impressive sights of all was a Canadian who had been evacuated once before from British Columbia because his skin was yellow. He was of Japanese origin; and in gratitude for the treatment he had received in Winnipeg he left his job and devoted all his time, day and night, to working on the dikes. He said he was glad to do it, because in that community he had been regarded as a human being. There was one difference between this man and other citizens. It was not the pigmentation of his skin. The difference lay in the fact that he had only one hand, having lost his right hand in an accident some two or three years ago.
But the danger is not yet past. It is all very well to read these Canadian Press reports saying that the danger is subsiding. Such is

Manitoba Flood
not necessarily the case. The river is only inching down, and there is still the possibility that dikes may go. But care is being taken to see that no lives are lost. In the Luxton area, for instance, which was visited by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), people can go to their flooded homes only when they get permission, when they get a boat, and when they have registered. They are given a card and go about their task, whatever it is; then on their return they surrender that card. In that way the community knows that no one will be lost.
At the same time, however, I think it is right to say that people are now getting their second wind. There is a growing feeling of security amongst them. The pressing urgency is subsiding; and now people are beginning to ask questions. Who is going to pay for the farm homes which have been destroyed? Who is goinf to pay for the livestock that has been drowned? Who is going to pay for the tractors and other implements that have been left to the mercy of the floods? Who is going to pay for those city homes which are so irretrievably damaged? Today the Prime Minister said that according to Central Mortgage and Housing there were some eight thousand of those homes. I think that is an understatement. The city of Winnipeg knows perhaps more about it than Central Mortgage and Housing, and their estimate is much higher. What of the man I saw with his wife; a man of about fifty-five, who throughout his working life had toiled to own his own home and who is now without work and also without a home? What about the veteran who placed all that he had in the way of rehabilitation credits in a home, which now has been devastated by the floods? The problem which faces Winnipeg and the surrounding community now is not so much one of relief as a tremendous social problem. We were confronted with this fact, for instance, that there are men out of work due to the floods. There were those who had lost their jobs, but whose families were still resident in the city. There were those who had lost their jobs, whose families had been evacuated, but whose homes were still intact. There were those who not only had lost their jobs and whose families had been evacuated, but who had completely lost their homes.
In the packing house industry, of which I know something, the members of the union across Canada decided they would raise money to maintain the incomes of those who had lost their jobs. We took up the matter with the big three packers, and eventually the packing house companies decided that as

a matter of policy they would pay all their men for time lost because of floods. That means the money which the union is now collecting can go into the general Manitoba relief fund. But I am sorry I cannot say the same practice is being followed by other branches of industry.
The question in the minds of the people is who is going to pay for all the damages. Obviously the municipalities cannot. Equally obviously the provincial government cannot. While we in Winnipeg and southern Manitoba are eternally grateful for the assistance that has come from every part of Canada, nevertheless it is clear that this fund which the Prime Minister seems to think will deal adequately with rehabilitation in the long run will amount to nothing more than a pittance. We had the extraordinary situation some weeks ago of the governments of Ontario and Saskatchewan offering all the assistance they could give and the premier of Manitoba, still blind to the menace confronting us, declining it. In Winnipeg the Prime Minister said that what he saw was a calamity. I think perhaps he used the wrong word; what he saw was a disaster. The calamity lay in the quality of leadership, or lack of leadership, given by the provincial authorities.
No one knows yet what is going to happen. The city of Winnipeg, by and large, is bearing the financial brunt not only for itself but for the surrounding municipalities. I live in the municipality of West Kildonan. There they could not afford to put down even one sandbag and the homes went by default. Yet the provincial government has done nothing to help this or other municipalities. Instead, the city of Winnipeg is today borrowing well over $100,000 a day, I am sure, for immediate flood purposes. This cannot go on indefinitely, yet still there is no word from any senior government, whether it be provincial or federal, as to what help will be given.
It is eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and I therefore move the adjournment of this debate.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will continue this debate to go into supply and call the items I mentioned last night. Then we will take up the bills I also mentioned last night. The order will be the same as announced at that time.


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

Appendix A

[Stage Direction]
PREMIER'S OFFICE Saskatchewan
Regina, March 8, 1950
The Rt. Hon. Louis S. St. Laurent,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario.
My dear Prime Minister:
In your letter of December 19th you were kind enough to suggest that you would be glad to receive recommendations as to subjects for discussion which the government of Saskatchewan would like to see placed on the agenda for the proposed Dominion-Provincial Conference next autumn.
Attached please find a list of the topics which we would like to see considered when the proposed agenda is being formulated. We would be pleased to submit further details with regard to any of the items mentioned should you wish further clarification of the various topics which we have listed.
Yours sincerely,
T. C. Douglas.
Suggested topics for discussion which in the opinion of the Saskatchewan government should be placed on the agenda of the general Dominion-Provincial conference-
Autumn, 1950
1.	Financial arrangements
(a)	Rowell Sirois report-National adjustment grants
(b)	Tax rental agreements
(c)	Indirect taxation rights for the provinces
(d)	Federal assistance to provinces in capital financing
2.	Social security and allied topics
(a)	Comprehensive social insurance: unemployment, old age, health, etc.
(b)	Extension of unemployment insurance to cover farm labour
(c)	Assistance to self employed
(d)	Extension of old age pensions to all 65 and over and abolition of means test
3.	Public investment
(a)	Counter-cyclical investment-planning and financing of anti-depression public works
(b)	Federal assistance in development of agriculture and natural resources
(c)	Dominion-Provincial relationships in re water conservation and development
4.	Marketing of natural products
(a)	Responsibility for marketing schemes
(b)	Expanding domestic consumption and disposition of surpluses
5.	Transportation
(a)	Federal assistance for highways
(b)	Control of inter-provincial traffic on highways
6.	Education
7.	Housing
8.	Labour
(a)	National labour code
(b)	Implementation of I.L.O. conventions
9.	Regional development
(a) Participation in regional authorities for planning and development.
10.	Dominion-Provincial Conference
(a) Regular conference with permanent secretariat
OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER Canada
Ottawa, March 13, 1950 Hon. T. C. Douglas, M.L.A.,
Premier of Saskatchewan,
Regina, Sask.
My dear Premier:
I duly received your letter of the 8th instant enclosing a list of suggested topics for discussion which, in the opinion of the Saskatchewan government, should be placed on the agenda of the General Dominion-Provincial Conference, Autumn, 1950.
We propose when we have received suggestions from other provincial governments to circulate the suggestions for further consideration. In this connection I note that one of the subjects mentioned in your list is "Education" and that it is not qualified in any way. Since education is exclusively within provincial jurisdiction, and is one of the most cherished of all provincial rights, my colleagues and I would be somewhat apprehensive that the circulation of any suggestion for its inclusion in the agenda, wherever it originated, might give rise to a feeling of anxiety on the part of a large number of Canadians. It may be, therefore, that you would feel it advisable to indicate more specifically what the government of Saskatchewan has in mind.
Yours sincerely,
Louis S. St. Laurent
PREMIER'S OFFICE Saskatchewan
Regina, April 15, 1950
The Right Honourable Louis S. St. Laurent,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario.
My dear Prime Minister:
Thank you for your letter of March 13th, in which I note you request some expansion of Item 6 ("Education") of the topics the government of Saskatchewan thought should be placed on the agenda of the Dominion-Provincial Conference to be held this autumn.
In brief, it is our feeling that there should be a minimum standard of educational opportunity available to all the children of Canada. It should make no difference whether the children are educated in the maritimes, in the central provinces or in the west. A high level of educational opportunity is basic to our democratic way of life.
However, great inequality of educational opportunity exists among the various provinces due to
[Stage Direction]
Dominion-Provincial Conference
such factors as the number of children to be educated, distribution of population and financial ability of the province. The federal government is the only agency able to bring about an equitable distribution of educational opportunities. It is suggested, therefore, that this problem should be recognized by the federal government, and that rectifying steps be taken either by considering educational need as a factor in determining the amount of federal subsidy, or as a problem warranting special and direct financial assistance from the federal government. It is further suggested that such financial assistance does not in any way need to interfere with provincial jurisdiction in the field of education.
I am sure that you would agree that the future of our nation is dependent upon the children of today. The standard of their education should not be determined by locality. We feel confident that this problem can only be adequately dealt with on a nation-wide scale. In our opinion the provision of assistance to establish a minimum standard of education could be accomplished by federal grants to education without any interference with the exclusive jurisdiction over the matter of education which is now enjoyed by the provinces.
For these reasons, we feel that this subject should be given serious consideration by the conference.
Yours sincerely,
T. C. Douglas
OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER Canada
Ottawa, April 17, 1950
Hon. T. C. Douglas, M.L.A.,
Premier of Saskatchewan,
Regina, Saskatchewan.
My dear Premier:
I duly received your letter of the 15th instant, setting forth the views of the government of Saskatchewan as to the reasons why they feel education should be one of the topics placed on the agenda of the Dominion-Provincial Conference to be held in the autumn.
Yours sincerely,
Louis S. St. Laurent
PREMIER'S OFFICE Saskatchewan
Regina, May 9, 1950
The Right Honourable Louis S. St. Laurent,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario.
My dear Prime Minister:
There is apparently one more problem which might be properly considered at the Dominion-Provincial Conference this autumn. I understand the National Physical Fitness Council has considered questions arising out of the application of the National Physical Fitness Act recently, at which time the Honourable Paul Martin indicated that he considered the matters of sufficient importance that they should be on the agenda.
The problems involve:
(a)	A ruling, I believe, of the Treasury Board defining the act as applying only to grants in aid of physical fitness. It is contended that this is unduly narrow, as a better term would perhaps be "recreational" or some similar expression which would include grants for arts and drama.
(b)	A further question is the sufficiency of funds made available for these important purposes, that play such an important role in the development of our Canadian culture.
The council has yearly passed resolutions in favour of changes in the act. Perhaps, as the Honourable Mr. Martin suggests, the matter should be placed on the agenda.
On behalf of the government of Saskatchewan, we wish to support Mr. Martin in having the problems arising out of the National Physical Fitness Act considered by the conference this autumn.
Yours sincerely,
T. C. Douglas
OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER Canada
Ottawa, May 23, 1950
Hon. T. C. Douglas, M.L.A.,
Premier of Saskatchewan,
Regina, Saskatchewan.
My dear Premier:
I duly received your letter of the 9th instant suggesting that problems arising out of the National Physical Fitness Act might be included in the agenda for the general conference of the federal-provincial governments in the autumn.
I shall not fail to see that the views of the government of Saskatchewan on this point are communicated to the governments of the other provinces for their consideration.
Yours sincerely,
Louis S. St. Laurent
PREMIER'S OFFICE Prince Edward Island Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, May 17, 1950.
Right Honourable Louis S. St. Laurent,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Mr. St. Laurent:
In reply to your earlier letter requesting suggestions as to topics which, as a provincial premier, I thought should be placed on the agenda for consideration at a fall dominion-provincial conference, the then impending meeting of our legislature indicated the desirability of a slight delay in order that the importance of the subject matter receive proper attention.
We had hoped that an early reconvening of the constitutional conference might have taken place, and possibly some problems clarified in the course of the discussions there.
It is apparent that such is not within the bounds of early probability, and I now suggest the following as matters which, I think, should be placed on the agenda at the proposed conference:
(a)	Consideration of the scope of provincial public services and its relation to provincial public debt and revenue.
(b)	Consideration of the problem of provincial finance as affected by federal programs intended to further the extension of provincial public services.
(c)	Review of federal and provincial spheres of taxation with the underlying consideration-the preservation of provincial autonomy.
(d)	Negotiation of extension or renewal of federal-provincial tax rental agreements based on current and developing need.
(e)	Transfer of certain existing services to federal jurisdiction and adjusting taxation structure to permit provincial solvency, and subsidy revision.
(f)	Review of old age pensions and other health and welfare services, and adjustment of federal contributions to provide for an equitable distribution of burden.

(g)	Consideration of federal and provincial responsibility for reasonably comparable educational facilities and opportunities throughout Canada as a whole.
(h)	The problem of matching grants in its relation to provincial finance.
(i)	Specific Prince Edward Island difficulties in relation to transportation.
(j)	Provincial economic development. In particular the encouragement of shipping in the gulf of St. Lawrence area and Newfoundland area so that Prince Edward Island products may reach their natural markets.
The above list is not necessarily exhaustive but at least contains some of the matters which we feel should be discussed at the conference.
Sincerely yours,
Walter Jones
Manitoba Flood OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER Canada
Ottawa,
May 23, 1950.
Honourable J. Walter Jones, M.L.A.,
Premier of Prince Edward Island,
Charlottetown, P.E.I.
My dear Premier:
I duly received your letter of the 17th instant, listing topics which the government of Prince Edward Island suggest to be placed on the agenda of the dominion-provincial conference to be held in the autumn-.
Yours sincerely,
Louis S. St. Laurent.
Appendix B

[Stage Direction]
Messages from His Majesty the King, Queen Juliana and the Prime Minister of Malta.
OTTAWA, May 23, 1950
His Honour
The Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba,
Winnipeg, Man.
I am commanded by the Governor General to send Your Honour the text of the following telegram received by His Excellency from His Majesty the King today: The Queen and I have watched with anxious concern the flood situation in Manitoba. We are greatly relieved and thankful to learn that there is now every reason to expect that the flood will recede. We sincerely hope that this may be so and that the great city of Winnipeg will soon recover from the crisis through which she is passing. Signed George R.
J. F. Delaute,
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.
OTTAWA, May 23, 1950
His Honour
The Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba,
Winnipeg, Man.
I am commanded by the Governor General to send Your Honour the text of the following telegram received by His Excellency from Her Majesty Queen Juliana of The Netherlands today: Profoundly touched by the disaster caused to
Winnipeg and surroundings by the catastrophal floods I beg you to accept my feelings of deepest sympathy for the stricken inhabitants in this part of the great country to which I am so much attached. Signed Juliana R.
J. F. Delaute, Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.
1235.23 May 50.L.
Prime Minister Ottawa
On behalf of the government and people of these islands I convey to you sincere sympathy at the loss suffered in Winnipeg during the recent floods.
Boffa
Prime Minister
Malta.
OTTAWA, May 23, 1950
Prime Minister Boffa Malta
I shall be pleased to convey to the House of Commons the message of sympathy which you were kind enough to send me on behalf of your government and the people of Malta. You may be assured that your sympathy will be appreciated by the affected people of Winnipeg and region as well as by all Canadians.
Louis S. St. Laurent.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 24, 1950