1954-06-09

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
BEING THE 96™ SESSION FOR THE PERIOD 1867-1954

[Stage Direction]
queen's printer and controller of stationery OTTAWA, 1954
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 9, 1954


Hon. Paul Marlin (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 475, to repeal the National Physical Fitness Act.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Explain.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, this hill seeks to do precisely what it says, to repeal the National Physical Fitness Act.


Mr. Fleming:: Why?


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Speaker, I think before this is agreed to it should simply be explained that it has been ineffective and the minister is taking the proper course.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, for the first time in a long time I am able to agree fully with what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) has said.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS


ARMED FORCES


Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: 1.	What were the regulations and practices in respect of a veteran of world war II who enlisted with an A1 category and was discharged after five years service with an E category?
2.	Is such a veteran automatically entitled to be boarded to ascertain pension disability, if any?
3.	Is it possible for a veteran who enlisted and did not falsify his medical history to enter the services as A1 category and later to be discharged as category E and medically unfit, and yet not be eligible for pension?
4.	If so, under what circumstances?


Mr. Bennefl:: 1.	The conditions governing entitlement to pension for veterans of world war II are set out in the Pension Act, which act prescribes the procedure to be followed by the applicant and the commission.
2.	Yes, the service documents of all veterans who served in world war II were screened to determine whether or not a pensionable disability existed at the time of discharge.
3 and 4. Yes, if the lowered category
(1) was caused by improper conduct as defined in the Pension Act; or
(2)	was incurred while on leave of absence without pay; or
(3)	was incurred when the member of the forces had, during leave of absence with pay, undertaken an occupation that was unconnected with military service; or
(4) was the result of the discovery on service of physical or mental inability to absorb training and when such physical or mental limitation pre-existed enlistment but was not apparent at the time of enlistment and the existence of which may well have been unknown to the serviceman himself.



GARLAND BUILDING, OTTAWA

Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	Has the Garland building at the comer of O'Connor and Queen streets, Ottawa, been leased by the federal government?
2.	If so, what is the term of the lease?
3.	What rental is being paid?
4.	Is the building being renovated?
5.	If so, what has been the cost of such renovations to date?
6.	What is the estimated cost to complete such renovations?
7.	Were tenders called for this work?
8.	If so, what are the names of those submitting tenders and the amount of each tender?
9.	Who was the successful tenderer and what was the amount of such tender?
10.	What was the original cost of this building?
11.	What is the assessed value and taxes per year?
12.	Was this building condemned at any time?
13.	What use is the government making of this building?


Mr. Bourgel:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Ten years from December 1, 1953.
3.	$54,450 per annum for 44,000 sq. ft
4.	Yes.
5 and 6. Estimated cost $175,000.
7.	Yes, by invitation bids.
8.	Leopold	Beaudoin	Construction	Company, $5,000	fixed fee;	Doran ConstructionCompany Limited, $6,000 fixed fee; A. Lanctot Construction Company, $6,124 fixed fee;	A. Tessier, $22,800	fixed fee.9.	Leopold	Beaudoin	Construction	Company-$5,000 fixed fee up to $175,000-3 per cent for any expenditure over $175,000.10.	No information available.11.	(a) $144,075.00 (assessment); (b) $5,956.64 (taxes, 1954).
Questions
12.	We are informed by the city building inspector and city fire inspector that the building has never been condemned.
13.	Office accommodation.
DOWNSVIEW AIRPORT-LIGHTING Mr. McBain:
1.	Were tenders called for construction of lighting facilities for Downsview airport?
2.	If so. what are the names of those who submitted tenders?
3.	What was the amount of each tender?
4.	To whom was the contract awarded, for what amount and on what date?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 1.	Yes.
2 and 3.
Names of tenderers	Amount of tender
Ontario Electrical Construction
Company, Ltd., Toronto, Ontario $14,281.15 Armstrong Bros., Brampton,
Ontario	 15,987.50
Accurate Electrical, Montreal, P.Q. 16,199.25 Canadian Comstock Co., Leaside,
Ontario	 17,188.10
Donovan Construction Co., Toronto,
Ontario	 18,900.00
Bedard-Girard Ltd., Montreal, P.Q. 20,300.00 John H. Baldwin Electric, Toronto
Ontario	 23,530.05
W. J. Robbins, Electrical,
St. Thomas, Ontario	 27,611.03
4. Ontario Electrical Construction Company, Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, at an amount of $14,281.15, on May 18, 1954.
INDIAN CARE, PUBLIC HOSPITALS Mr. Trainor:
1.	What was the total amount paid to public general hospitals for the care of Indians, during 1953?
2.	What was the amount per patient day?


Mr. Martin:: 1.	Total amount paid during the fiscal year 1953-54 direct to public general hospitals (classified as such by the province or territory in which located) and as premiums to the British Columbia hospital insurance service covering almost all the native population in British Columbia-$2,302,575.
2.	It is not possible to compute an over-all average patient day cost because of the factor of insurance (almost all the native population in British Columbia are covered by the British Columbia hospital insurance service -hence payments are not made direct to individual hospitals but in the form of premiums). The rates paid were the result of negotiations with the individual hospitals and with the agencies operating hospitals or
[Mr. Bourget.l
insurance plan. These rates ranged from approximately $4.50 per day to $16.50 per day for bedside nursing care in multiple patient ward accommodation.



SALE OF HOUSES, ARVIDA, QUE.

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Have there been any discussions or negotiations, or has there been any correspondence, between the Aluminum Company of Canada and the federal government, or any department, branch, agency or official thereof, concerning the selling of some of the houses owned by the said company at Arvida, Quebec, to its employees, and the possibility of federal assistance or participation in such sales in any way?
2.	If so, what have been the subjects of such discussions, negotiations or correspondence?
3.	What is the present status of the matter?
4.	What terms are involved in any such assistance or participation?


Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Speaker, the officers of my department have canvassed the likely departments about this question and no information has come to light and the answer is that there has been none which we can discover. If the hon. member can throw any light on it I would be glad if he would do so.


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can throw light on it when I meet the minister privately.



FEDERAL EXPENDITURES, SASKATCHEWAN

Mr. Sluder:: 1.	What was the total expenditure in Saskatchewan for the fiscal year 1952-53, by the federal government, including the statutory subsidy and tax rental agreement payments?
2.	What was the total expenditure during the fiscal year 1952-53 in Saskatchewan by each federal government department and agency?
3.	What was the total amount of expenditures in Saskatchewan by all federal government departments and agencies, since April 1, 1944?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1 and 2:
Expenditures by the federal government in the province
Thousands
of
dollars
A Direct payments to the provincial
government:
(a)	Compensation under dominionprovincial taxation agreements		26,121
(b)	Compensation under section 7, Dominion-Provincial Taxation Agreement Act, 1947 (share of net taxes collected from certain public utility
companies)	 31
(c)	Statutory subsidies	
2,041(d)	General health grants	
1,981
30,174

B Direct payments to or on behalf of individual residents of the province:
(a)	Family allowances	 19,723
(b)	Pensions (world wars I and II) 5,843
(c)	Veterans war service gratuities
and re-establishment credits	 524
(d)	Veterans post-discharge rehabilitation benefits	
107(e)	War veterans allowances	1,276(f)	Old age pensions, pensions toblind persons (and old age security payments)	
20,150
47,623
C Interest paid on government of Canada bonds:
Estimated amount of interest paid to holders of government of Canada
bonds in the province	 13,140
D Estimate of major expenditures by government departments or agencies within the province:
(a)	Agriculture	
7,776(b)	Citizenship and immigration ..	1,993(c)	Finance	
782(d)	Fisheries	
12(e)	Justice	
1,309(f)	Labour	
922(g)	Mines and technical surveys ..	57(h)	National defence	
19,763(i)	National health and welfare ..	1,367(j)	National revenue	
1,497(k)	Public works	
1,592(l)	Resources and development ..	2,405(m)	Royal Canadian MountedPolice	
4,023(n)	Trade and commerce	
568(o)	Transport (including C.M.C.and N.H. board)	
1,519(p)	Veterans affairs	
2,328(q)	Central Mortgage and HousingCorporation	
304
48,217
E Proportional share of federal government's contribution to the unemployment insurance fund
Portion allocated to province on basis of proportion of number of insured workers in province to number
of insured workers in Canada		764
Total Expenditures	 139,918
83276-360i
Questions
Expenditures in thousands
3.	Fiscal year	of dollars1944-	45	
78,9211945-	46	
111,3501946-	47	
118,9151947-	48	
115,7321948-	49	
102,1961949-	50	
103,8821950-	51	
133,1911951-	52	
110,2931952-	53	
139,9181953-	54	
141,883*Total Expenditures	
1,156,281
Expenditure figures do not include:
(a)	The more general type of budgetary expenditures which are made for the benefit of the country as a whole and which are of direct benefit to all the provinces. In this category are the expenses of the central legislative body at Ottawa, the financial and administrative departments at Ottawa, and the research activities of the national research council.
(b)	Payments to the majority of suppliers of goods and services as the payments are in many cases made to the head office of the company and therefore do not lend themselves to an accurate segregation by provinces.



CIVIL DEFENCE WORKERS

Mr. Huffman:: 1.	How many people are enrolled for civil defence work in Canada?
2.	How many of these are full-time civil defence workers and how many are part-time voluntary workers?


Mr. Martin:: 1.	Over 163,000, according to recent strength reports from the provincial civil defence co-ordinators.
2.	Over 82,000 on a "duty" basis; 81,000 on a voluntary basis.



DISASTER PLANNING, HOSPITALS

Mr. Goode:: 1- Has any planning been done to prepare hospitals in Canada to operate under disaster conditions?
2. If so, what form has this planning taken?


Paul Joseph James Martin: 1 and 2. Yes. A series of hospital disaster institutes is being conducted. One has been held in British Columbia to serve British Columbia and Alberta hospitals. One has been held in Halifax for the Atlantic provinces. In the near future, institutes will be held at the head of the great lakes for this

Questions
region, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. At least two will be held in the province of Ontario; and two will be held in the province of Quebec, one of which will be in French.
In each instance the staff of a large hospital and, as contrast, of a small hospital, with the assistance of officers of the civil defence health planning group of the Department of National Health and Welfare, prepare a complete plan for the handling of mass casualties. Then the hospital administrators and chiefs of medical services and of nursing services from each of about 15 other hospitals in each area attend a two-day institute conducted by the health planning group of the department. During the institute they receive instruction in the preparation of hospital plans, examine the plans of the host hospital, and discuss these plans on the actual hospital premises. On the completion of the institute personnel from the attending hospitals undertake to carry out disaster plans in their own institutions. In this way about 100 hospitals across Canada, including D.V.A. hospitals, will be able to develop their own plans and to assist neighbouring hospitals in the preparation of further plans.
Another phase of planning which has recently been developed by the civil defence health planning group of the Department of National Health and Welfare is a regulation of casualty flow. By this is meant the general management of casualties at all levels of service, particularly in respect of the flow of casualties through rescue, first aid and medical treatment centres, and includes principles of evacuation and the operational control of health services.



CIVIL DEFENCE TRAINING, MEDICAL PERSONNEL

Mr. MacDougall:: What special civil defence training, if any, is being given to Canadian physicians and nurses?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Arrangements in effect between the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of National Defence whereby candidates attend the A.B.C. warfare defence course held three times a year at Camp Borden have enabled the civil defence health services of the Department of National Health and Welfare to collaborate with provincial civil defence health services authorities in the indoctrination so far of 274 Canadian physicians.
In addition officers of the federal civil defence health services have conducted courses across Canada for nursing instructors on the subject of how to teach the nursing aspects of A.B.C. warfare. At the conclusion of these courses the 1,300 nursing instructors

so trained have imparted their knowledge, by means of a series of 12-hour courses, to over 28,000 active, retired, and married nurses across the country.
Civil defence nursing is now part of the basic curricula for student nurses in five provinces.
Home nursing training conducted by the Red Cross Society and the St. John Ambulance Association has now been extended to rural areas and includes at least four hours of intensive civil defence instruction. Arrangements have been made also under which selected students in home nursing are given 44 hours of hospital experience.
Following individual training, team training in casualty services and in particular in the operation of first aid stations is carried out in several areas in Canada. This team training is done through the conduct of first aid station demonstrations in which, following examples staged in the first instance under the supervision of federal civil defence health services authorities, local authorities organize full complements of physicians, nurses, nurses' aides, auxiliary workers and stretcher bearers and actually implement a program of casualty care in the first aid station as it would be carried out under disaster conditions. Usually, as many as 250 people are required for each such demonstration. Actual medical supplies are used and authentic atmosphere is created through the use of the accurate medical and cosmetical simulation of from 50 to 100 casualties. This procedure, in addition to being a training factor, serves to give considerable stimulation to local civil defence organization.



SALE OF WHEAT TO RUSSIA

Mr. Thatcher:: Has the Canadian wheat board, or any other government agency, taken any specific steps since January 1 to sell wheat to Russia?


Mr. Dickey:: Approximately three months ago, two representatives of the U.S.S.R. called on officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce and inquired into the availability and prices of Canadian wheat for shipment to the U.S.S.R. The necessary information was provided to them but, to date, there have been no further developments.



P.F.R.A. OFFICIALS' EXPENSES

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Did any of the officials or employees connected with the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act administration, whose names appear in sessional paper No. 10B tabled on June 1, 1954, receive any expenses additional to those set out in the return which were charged directly to the Department of Agriculture?
2.	If so, who are such persons and what was the respective amount of such expenses?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	No.
2.	See answer to No. 1.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS PURCHASES

Stanley Howard Knowles: What was the dollar value of purchases made by the Canadian National Railways, during each of the last three years (either fiscal or calendar), from (a) Montreal Bronze Limited; (b) Monsarrat Machinery and Foundries Limited; (c) Smiths Falls Malleable Casting Company; (d) Dominion Brake Shoe Company Limited; (e) Canadian Car and Foundry Company, Limited; (f) Dominion Wheel and Foundries Limited; (g) Montreal Locomotive Works Limited?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
It is not the policy of the company to divulge the nature and details of contracts or orders between the railway and other parties for the supply of materials required for company use.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How many (a) charges; (b) convictions; (c) acquittals; (d) charges not proceeded with, have there been in Canada between January 1, 1919 and January 1, 1954, under sections 89, 90, 92, 94, 95, 96 and 97 of the Criminal Code, chapter 36 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, or their predecessors if the section numbers in question have been altered during that period?
2.	What was the "style of cause" in each conviction noted above?
3.	How many times has the Riot Act been read in Canada between January 1, 1919 and January 1, 1954?
4.	What official (sheriff, deputy sheriff, mayor or other head officer, or justice) was responsible for each such reading, and what official read it in each such case?
5.	How many times during the above period has the Riot Act been read in connection with a labour dispute, and when and where did such readings take place?
6.	Has the Riot Act been read in Canada at any time since January 1, 1954? If so, when and where?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Diefenbaker:: For a copy of the expense accounts amounting to the sums of $2,794.23, $3,416,13, $2,811.88, $2,534.63, $3,356.84,	$2,791.51,	$2,609.78,	$2,318.64,	$2,644.07,
$2,447.85, $2,416.88, which according to return No. 10B, tabled on June 1, 1954, represented the respective expense accounts for the year 1953 of the following officers or employees of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act administration, namely; (a) Mr. H. C. Biddell; (b) Mr. E. H. Butterfield; (c) Mr. J. H. Graham; (d) Mr. W. H. GiUis; (e) Mr. M. Hunka; (f) Mr. B. B. Kenny; (g) Mr. M. R. Skelton; (h) Dr. L. B. Thomson; (i) Mr. D. L. Barlow; (j) Mr. Adam Lyon; (k) Mr. J. L. Smith.
Motions for Papers



P.F.A.A. OFFICIALS' EXPENSE ACCOUNTS

John George Diefenbaker: For a copy of the expense accounts amounting to the sums of $3,424.96, $3,298.38, $3,075.10, and $3,023.86, which according to return of No. 9F, tabled on June 1, 1954, represented the respective expense accounts for the year 1953 of the foUowing officers or employees of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act administration, namely: (a) Mr. F. Carpenter; (b) Mr. J. H. MitcheU; (c) Mr. E. Zahorski; (d) Mr. A. A. Brown.



NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD ACT


Hon. Sluarl S. Garson (for the Minister of Transport) moved: the third reading of Bill No. 421, to amend the National Harbours Board Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



POST OFFICE ACT


John Whitney Pickersgill: the third reading of Bill No. 473, to amend the Post Office Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion agreed to?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before this motion for third reading is put, there are a few words I wish to say. Yesterday we made clear by our vote on second reading that we are opposed to this bill. It is therefore not necessary for me to say much on this motion for third reading. However, on checking my files in connection with this matter, in which I have certain correspondence with persons who were interested in seeing this bill go through, I find that, when I spoke on second reading yesterday, I used one figure which was not quite correct. As a matter of fact, from my point of view, the situation is even a little bit worse than that which would be indicated by the figures I used. When I spoke on second reading yesterday I indicated that the saving in trucking costs to Maclean's magazine resulting from the passage of this bill would be of the order of $20,000 or $25,000 a year. I was then speaking from memory. On checking the correspondence that I have in this matter I now find that the saving to Maclean's magazine from the passing of this bill will be something over $36,000 a year. That is Maclean's stake in this measure. That is the amount it is now costing that

Post Office Act
publication to truck from Toronto to Montreal those magazines going to provinces outside of Ontario. In addition to that $36,000 or more which the passing of this bill will save Maclean's magazine, there is another $9,000 a year which Maclean's magazine will have to continue paying for trucking from Toronto to Montreal its issues which are addressed to subscribers in the province of Ontario. As was made clear yesterday, although this bill will make it possible for the issues going to other provinces to be mailed from Toronto, and that is the main purpose of this bill, that change will not be possible in respect of issues mailed to subscribers in Ontario. In other words, for this magazine there is a total sum of $45,000 a year at present involved in trucking charges, $36,000 of which will be saved by the passing of this bill, if it is passed.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the source of those statistics?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) asks where I obtained these statistics. I have them under my hand in a letter from a gentleman who represents both the Periodical Press Association and Maclean's magazine. The same gentleman and I had an interview with regard to the matter and subsequently we had an exchange of letters. The figures I am giving are figures I have taken from the letter which is now under my hand.
I just want to say this, Mr. Speaker. Maclean's magazine can readily and easily save this entire sum of $45,000 a year in a very simple way. All they have to do is to discontinue the acceptance of liquor advertising, whereupon they would be able to print, publish and mail all of their copies from the city of Toronto. What Maclean's magazine wants to be assisted in doing is to get around the provision in the Ontario liquor control act against the publishing of liquor advertising and, at the same time, to have the benefit of the cheap postage rates which obtain for magazines and periodicals, as provided in the Post Office Act.
Yesterday when we were debating this matter the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) "caught me out" at one stage. He said at one point that there are no cheap rates provided by the Post Office Department. In a quick reply I said I agreed with the Leader of the Opposition and that I had used the term relatively. A moment later I realized that I should not have agreed with the Leader of the Opposition. While it is true that there are no cheap rates on first-class mail, especially since the recent increase in letter rates, nevertheless there are cheap

rates provided by the Post Office Department for magazines and periodicals. My statement in that connection stands.
However, Mr. Speaker, as I say, Maclean's magazine wants to have the privilege of circumventing an Ontario law and at the same time to get the advantage of these cheap rates. As I see it, that is the main purpose of this legislation; its purpose is to facilitate a firm in its desire to get around a provincial law. It is for that reason that we voted against this measure yesterday. So far as the members of this group are concerned, that is the issue. As I see it, Maclean's is like the king in "Hamlet": It wants to be pardoned and yet retain the offence. It wants to be excused from complying with the law of the province in which it operates and yet at the same time it wants to get the advantage of these cheap rates provided for periodicals and magazines without paying the penalty which it now has to pay in trucking its issues from Toronto to Montreal. That is what this bill really is, namely an attempt to assist a firm, by federal law, to get around the provisions of a law in the province in which this firm operates. The members of this group think that legislation of this kind should not be brought before this house.
May I also indicate to the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) that if this law goes through, I will expect an accounting next year with respect to this matter, bearing in mind the wording in the bill which says that no provision granted under this amending bill shall adversely affect the postal revenues. I have in mind in particular the point I made yesterday, namely that all issues of Maclean's magazine destined for the provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland are now being trucked to Montreal and carried by the Post Office Department from Montreal to their destinations in those five eastern provinces. If, under this new arrangement, the Post Office Department has to carry those magazines the additional distance from Toronto to Montreal, it seems to me that is something that is going to adversely affect the postal revenues. I would hope that that section of the bill will be observed. If there is that additional cost to the Post Office Department for carrying those issues that extra distance from Toronto to Montreal, I hope that the additional cost will be charged back to any publication getting such an advantage.
There is just one other word I wish to add, Mr. Speaker. This bill came to us by what has sometimes been referred to as the backdoor method; it came in from the other place. That fact means that if it is now given third reading, all that is required is royal assent.

It is sometimes argued in this house and in other quarters that the reason for our having two houses in this parliament is so that the other place can take a sober, second look at legislation passed by the elected representatives. I suggest, since there will be no such opportunity for a sober second look at this legislation by Their Honours in the other place, who did not discuss at all what this bill really does, that the argument as to the utility of the Senate as a reviewing body should no longer be advanced. We are opposed to this bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the utterly misleading statements made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) can be allowed to pass unnoticed. The purpose of the bill, and the sole reason the government brought it in, was that American publications are allowed four places to post in Canada and Canadian publications are unfairly discriminated against by being limited to only one.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to
place myself on record. I hope there will be nothing alarming to other hon. members about it, but it is extraordinary the number of occasions on which the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) and I are finding ourselves in agreement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My face is red.


George Alexander Drew: I do not wish to let go unchallenged a statement which I believe completely misinterprets what is before us. I will not say "misrepresents" but I will say "misinterprets". I am sure that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in putting forward the opinions that he has put forward is sincerely misled as to what the effect of the bill is because I have complete confidence not only in his industry but in his mental integrity as well as his personal integrity. I am certain that he misconceives the effect of this measure.
The bill before us is one which enables the Post Office Department to provide for Canadian publications the same facilities now available to publications from the United States. This is in no way confined to liquor advertising or any other type of advertising. I hold no particular view in regard to the content of one publication or another. My remarks apply with equal force to every Canadian publication. We hear a great deal about the advancement of Canadian culture. I believe that one of the great media in the
Post Office Act
advancement of culture is the periodical publication. I think that the more we can do to facilitate the distribution of Canadian periodical publications in competition with publications from the United States the more we will do to develop a distinctly Canadian outlook and a distinctly Canadian culture.
To me, with the utmost friendship for the United States, it has been a matter of very great concern for a number of years that by the very weight of numbers of magazines published the publishers in the United States are able to come so close to saturating this market. I am not at all sure that we should not go a great deal further in encouraging Canadian publications in every part of Canada to carry to the people of Canada distinctly Canadian ideas. As an incident of whatever facilities there may be, let us recognize with complete frankness that, where the law permits liquor advertising as well as any other advertising, to the extent to which the number of Canadian magazines distributed is expanded to that extent will the advertising be expanded. That, however, is only an ordinary incident of the expanding publication of Canadian magazines, which all of us should welcome.
If there is to be further limitation with regard to this particular type of advertising, that is another subject. I am prepared to discuss it on its own merits at any time. That is not the issue before us. The only thing accomplished by this measure is to provide further facilities for distribution and that is contained in subparagraph Cii) of paragraph (d) of subsection 1 which permits the publisher to post in "some other postal area approved by the Postmaster General upon his being satisfied that the posting of the newspaper or periodical within such other postal area will promote greater convenience in the distribution thereof and that the application of this section to the newspaper or periodical when so posted will not adversely affect the postal revenues."
That, Mr. Speaker, is an administrative provision. On such occasions as I disagree with the course the government is following I shall most certainly express that disagreement. I have on many occasions and will continue to do so with the utmost sincerity and possibly with considerable vigour. On this particular occasion I believe we should look at the measure as it stands, realize that it is an administrative procedure and that the time for us to decide whether there has been any evasion or otherwise of this provision will be when we have seen it in operation, which operation will be under the Post Office

Post Office Act
Department. We can then find out whether there has been any permission granted which should not have been granted.
In so far as circumventing any provincial law restricting liquor advertising is concerned, not one word in the amendment in any way provides a means to circumvent those laws. If any province wants to make the law stronger that is for them to do, and this measure cannot change that. By whatever device these publications are now distributed in areas where there is a law against the publication of liquor advertising, that situation will remain exactly as it is. The bill before us provides greater facilities for the magazines of Canada, and I for one want to do everything I can to assist them in competing with magazines from outside of this country.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to delay the house and I shall speak only for a moment or two. I rise now because I was present when the gentleman from Maclean's magazine interviewed the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He met both of us, and there was no doubt in my mind, and I do not think there was any doubt in his mind, as to the purpose of his visit to us and what was wanted from the Post Office Department. He told us about the difficulties the magazine was in because it could not accept liquor advertising under the provisions of the Ontario act. He said it was necessary for the magazine, in order to compete, if you like, with American magazines, to be able to accept liquor advertising. It was solely on that basis that he appealed to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and myself.
I am quite satisfied it was solely on that basis that he appealed to the post office authorities to help them to circumvent the provincial legislation. That is what has been done. I do not know why the question of Canadian culture has been brought into the picture. I am all for Canadian culture, but I hope we shall find better ways to promote Canadian culture than by using the proceeds of liquor advertising. Surely there is some better way than that in a country such as Canada.


Mr. John M. James (Durham):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to support what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) has said. While I hesitate to inject my own particular business into this matter, I think it is only fair that hon. members who have objected so strongly to this legislation should know that there are nearly a thousand weekly newspapers in Canada many of which will be

interested in this legislation. Let me explain the problem that arises. My own publication is published in Bowmanville, which is on the lake front. It is published on Thursday mornings, and we have a very large circulation in the north end of Durham county. These people cannot get their papers by mail the same day if we ship them by train. They have to go to Toronto and around by the back way. They get them the next day. If we are enabled through this legislation to send our papers to the north by bus, by car, by truck or any other way, and put them through the post office in the village of Blackstock, our subscribers in that area will be able to get their papers on the same day as the people in Bowmanville and other areas get their papers. I know that this measure was welcomed by us, and I am sure by many other weeklies and indeed provincial dailies and metropolitan dailies, with open arms.


Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Yesterday when this matter was before the house, Mr. Speaker, I was busy in another committee. The case made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) does not need more support but I would like to say a few words. In answer to the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill), I would say that if Canadian magazines are at an unfair advantage now all that would be necessary would be for the Post Office Department to put United States magazines in the same position as Canadian magazines, namely required to be mailed at one point in Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Certainly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does he realize the United States enjoys this privilege because of an international agreement? Is he advocating that we break our international agreement?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: As I understand it, the international agreement permits the magazines published in the United States to be sent anywhere in Canada, but they are mailed at Canadian centres by agreement with the Canadian postal department. We have no international agreement, as I understand it, that gives United States publications the right to be mailed at a number of different centres in Canada.
There is one other point I should mention. The people of this country have demonstrated that they are behind the Canadian magazines by agreeing to subsidize these periodicals. I have not the figures before me, but if my memory serves me the Postmaster General told us that we are subsidizing Canadian

periodicals to the extent of $15 million a year because second-class mail is being handled at a loss. I feel that is a very generous contribution.
My views on liquor are well known. I do not propose to inflict my opinions on the house but I believe this parliament should have some respect for provincial laws. We have heard a great deal about dominion-provincial rights. So long as Ontario has a law that says no publication in that province shall accept or print liquor advertisements, I feel this parliament should respect it. I have been a subscriber to Maclean's for a long time. I believe it is a very good periodical, but I do not welcome having the liquor advertisements come into my house as a subsidized project. I object to this parliament passing legislation that will now make it legal for Maclean's magazine to accept liquor advertisements, to print the magazine in Toronto and mail it in Toronto, in spite of the fact the Ontario law says that is illegal. The parliament of this country is, by law, making it possible for Canadian publications to disregard the law of the province in which they are published, that is Ontario, and I think for the benefit of future relations between the provinces and this parliament we should not vote for the third reading of this bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall this motion be agreed to, on division?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the third time and passed.



PENSION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, June 8, consideration in committee of Bill No. 339, to amend the Pension Act-Mr. Lapointe- Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose last evening we were considering clause 2. Shall the clause carry?
On clause 2-Salaries.


Mr. Brooks:: It is not my intention to prolong this debate. We had a very intensive discussion of this section last night. If anyone had any doubts as to the unnecessary inclusion of this section in the act previous to that discussion, I am sure those doubts should have been dispelled. This debate has clearly indicated that this section is entirely unnecessary. No logical argument has been advanced as to why this provision for the salaries of the commissioners should be included.
Pension Act
It has been pointed out clearly also that this section is of no benefit to the veterans. If the salaries of the commissioners should be increased, there is a provision in the act now for the increasing of those salaries. Our procedure in this connection is one of long standing. I feel it was clearly indicated there would be no hardships inflicted on the commissioners if this section were not passed. It is clearly indicated, too, that this section takes away the rights of parliament. I am not going to debate that any further, Mr. Chairman. It is not necessary.
It was indicated that the commission being a quasi-judicial body should be free from all political influence or even the appearance of political influence, just as the judges of this country are. I am not going to press these points any further, Mr. Chairman, but I again appeal to the minister to have this section deleted from the act. I am sure it will give general satisfaction to all the veterans across this country, and to all the friends of the veterans. I know that the great majority of this country are in that category. If the minister does not see his way clear to deleting the section, I think we are justified in appealing to all members of this committee to vote the section down.


Mr. Hahn:: I do not wish to reiterate all the claims and charges that were made yesterday. As I said yesterday, however, I feel that we should not let the control of the spending of money leave this particular parliament or any parliament in the future. We have had too long a struggle in the past to try to obtain it. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley:
That clause 2, section (1), of the bill be amended by striking out the words "the governor in council" in line 16 and substituting in place thereof the word "parliament" and
That clause 2, section (2), be amended by striking out the words "the governor in council" where they occur in line 19, and substituting therefor the word "parliament".
Subamendment negatived: Yeas, 53; nays,
86.


William Alfred Robinson: I declare the subamendment lost. Shall clause 2 as previously amended carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: On division.
Clause agreed to on division.
Clauses 3 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 8.


Mr. Bennett:: Mr. Chairman, I offer the following amendment, which the Minister of Finance will move:
That subsection 3 of section 31 of the said act be repealed and the following substituted therefor:
" (3) Notwithstanding any limitations contained In this section, the commission may, in its discretion.

Pension Act
make an additional award not exceeding an amount equivalent to an additional eighteen months' pension where, through delays in securing service or other records, or through other administrative difficulties, beyond the applicant's control, it is apparent that an injustice might otherwise ensue."


Mr. Abbott:: I so move.


William Alfred Robinson: Hon. members have heard the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the amendment?


Mr. Green:: Is the effect of this amendment to extend the coverage to all veterans, rather than have it restricted to veterans of world war II, as at present?


Colin Emerson Bennett: Yes; it restores the act as it is at the present time. In other words, it deletes the present subsection 8 of the bill and makes section 31 (3) applicable to all veterans-those of world war I, world war II and the Korean force.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
On clause 10-Pension at discretion of commission in certain cases.
Colin Emerson Bennett: I believe the Minister of Finance is prepared to move the following amendment:
That clause 10 be amended by substituting the word "May" for the word "January" in the second line of subsection (5) of section 34 of the Pension Act as proposed to be enacted by the said clause 10.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I so move.


William Alfred Robinson: Are hon. members prepared to accept the amendment that has been read, moved by the Minister of Finance?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 11.
Colin Emerson Bennett: I understand the Minister of Finance is prepared to move the following amendment:
That clause 11 be amended by substituting the word "May" for the word "January" in the second, fourteenth and sixteenth lines of paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of section 36 of the Pension Act as proposed to be enacted by the said clause 11.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I so move.


William Alfred Robinson: Hon. members have heard the amendment moved by the Minister of Finance.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 12.
Colin Emerson Bennett: With respect to clause 12 the Minister of Finance will move:
That clause 12 be amended by substituting the word "May" for the word "January" in the second,

fourteenth and sixteenth lines of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 37 of the Pension Act as proposed to be enacted by the said clause 12.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I so move.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the Minister of Finance explain the amendment.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is a change in date-just making it a little later.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 13-Additional award.
Colin Emerson Bennett: I understand that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Colin Emerson Bennett: -will move the following amendment:
That the following be substituted as clause 13 of the bill:
"13. Subsection (3) of section 42 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
(3) Notwithstanding limitations contained in this section, the commission may, in its discretion, make an additional award not exceeding an amount equivalent to an additional eighteen months' pension where, through delays in securing service or other records or through other administrative difficulties, beyond the applicant's control, it is apparent that an injustice might otherwise ensue; but no such payment may be made in respect of any member of the forces who has died for any period prior to the date of death."


Mr. Harris:: I so move.


William Alfred Robinson: Hon. members have heard the amendment.


Howard Charles Green: Will the parliamentary assistant explain the effect of this amendment.


Colin Emerson Bennett: Section 42 of the act applies to pension cases where pensions are paid on account of death, while section 31 applies to disability pensions. This amendment restores the act to where it was before Bill 339 was introduced, and also makes applicable all the benefits of that section to the Korean, world war I and world war II veterans.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: And it is in agreement with what was decided in committee?


Colin Emerson Bennett: Yes, that is what the committee recommended.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is it not possible to improve the draftsmanship? In the last clause the amendment reads "but no such payment may be made in respect of any member of the forces who has died"-and I am drawing attention to the last words "for any period prior to the date of death". I am trying to follow it only after a quick reading of it. Is not the meaning that no payment is to be made for any period prior to the date of death in respect of any member of the forces who has died?


Colin Emerson Bennett: The amendment uses the same wording as is in the present act, where it states in section 42 (2):
but no payments may be made under this section in respect of any member of the forces who has died, for any period prior to the date of death.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is the situation we run into where legislation is thrown at us without the opportunity of previous examination, and there is haste. I put it to hon. members that whether it has been in the statute or not, it is not the language of good draftsmanship. What is proposed now is that "no such payment may be made in respect of any member of the forces who has died for any period prior to the date of death". There is no punctuation after the word "died" and you have the expression "who has died for any period prior to the date of death". Surely, Mr. Chairman, what is intended by the mover in introducing this amendment is rather that "no such payment may be made for any period prior to the date of death in respect of any member of the forces who has died". That is what is intended, is it not? Surely we do not put in the statute an expression like this "who has died for any period prior to the date of death".


Colin Emerson Bennett: The hon. member for Eglinton would suggest a comma being inserted after the words "who has died"?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not think the insertion of a comma will remove what is undesirable in the composition here. Surely, what is needed is simply to move these closing words, promote them to an earlier point in the clause, and make it read: '"No such payment may be made for any period prior to the date of death in respect of any member of the forces who has died".


Mr. Tucker:: This has been in the statute many years, and the committee on veterans affairs very carefully considered this matter. Their attitude is that where a section is meeting with the approval of the veterans all over Canada it should not be changed because it might make some change that was not necessary. Where a section of the act is satisfactory to all the veterans no change has been suggested, except such change as was unanimously recommended by the committee. Having that in mind, I think it is not altogether in order for the hon. member for Eglinton to say that this is thrown at us suddenly. This was considered by the veterans affairs committee and recommended in the report to this house. That report was in Votes and Proceedings, and so far as I know the committee on veterans affairs were unanimously satisfied with this. The veterans of Canada are satisfied with it.
83276-361J
Pension Act
I would point out also that the interpretation of this act, in law and everything else, is entirely in the hands of the Canadian pension commission. They know what it means, and they have been interpreting it now for a long time. I suggest it would be unwise to change it.


Howard Charles Green: Would there be any objection to switching these words around to make the clause absolutely clear? If we took the words "for any period prior to the date of death" and inserted them after the word "made" the clause then would be perfectly obvious and clear, and that would meet the objection raised by the hon. member for Eglinton. The latter part of the section would then read:
... it is apparent that an injustice might otherwise ensue; but no such payment may be made for any period prior to the date of death in respect of any member of the forces who has died.
That certainly makes the clause much clearer than it is at the present time, and I do not see that any harm will be done by making that switch in the latter part of the clause.


Colin Emerson Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I have every regard for the abilities with respect to draftsmanship of the hon. member for Eglinton, and in the committee we did listen with great respect to the recommendations made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra during the sittings of the veterans committee, but I do not feel that any useful purpose would be served by the amendment suggested today. The meaning is obvious. I do not think any other meaning could be taken from it. As the chairman of the veterans affairs committee has said, the pension commission has been interpreting this section for a great number of years for the benefit of veterans across this country and I do not think we should change it now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not propose to debate the subject longer. I wish to say if this is a sample of the English language we are using in legislation in this parliament, it is high time we stopped and considered what we are inserting in the statutes of Canada. It is not a question of changing the meaning of words that I suggest by way of alternative. I wish to make it perfectly clear to the hon. member for Rosthern that what I suggest is better calculated to carry out the purpose of the amendment than the language proposed in the amendment itself. Let us understand, Mr. Chairman, that what the government is insisting upon is that we legislate in terms like these:
in respect of any member of the forces who has died for any period prior to the date of death.


Douglas Charles Abbott: What is wrong with that?
5698	HOUSE OF
Navigable Waters Protection Act


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is no punctuation there. You are talking about a man "who has died for any period prior to the date of death". I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if anybody in this house were to sit down and draft this in this form he would not be very happy about it. I suggest also, Mr. Chairman, that what we really mean is in the form in which I have made the suggestion as to the rewording of this clause. As it stands now, without any punctuation, without any qualification of this language, it is just very poor composition and very poor English.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses 14 to 17 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 18.
Colin Emerson Bennett: I understand that the Minister of Finance is prepared to move an amendment to clause 18.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I move:
That clause 18 be amended by substituting the word "May" for the word "January" In the fourth line of paragraph (a) and in the fourth line of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section 74 of the Pension Act as proposed to be enacted by the said clause 18.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: the second reading of Bill No. 471, to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act.


George Alexander Drew: Is the minister going to make any statement in connection with this?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: As hon. members know, this bill comes to us from the other place, where it was passed without amendment. The Navigable Waters Protection Act, like ancient Gaul, is divided into three parts. The administration of part II of the act which deals with the removal of obstructions to navigation is placed under the Minister of Transport.
At present the act provides for the removal or destruction of any wreck, vessel or other thing that constitutes or is likely to cause


an obstruction to the navigation of any navigable water. By section 14 of the act, if navigation is obstructed by a wreck, the minister may cause the wreck to be removed or destroyed. By section 15 he may convey the wreck or its cargo to a convenient place and there sell it at public auction or otherwise as he deems most advisable, applying the proceeds of the sale against the removal expenses and paying any surplus to the owner. By section 16 the minister is authorized to recover the cost of placing signals and removing the wreck from the owner, master or person in charge of the vessel, or the person responsible for causing the obstruction.
As hon. members will recall, by certain decisions of the courts, the right of the crown to recover the cost of removing obstructions to navigation has been restricted to cases where the wreck has been conveyed to a place and there sold. It has been held that the sale of the property removed as an obstruction to navigation is a condition precedent to the recovery of the expenses of removal, unless there is nothing which can be sold. This restrictive interpretation is unduly onerous on the department which, in these cases, endeavours to find the most economical way of removing the obstacle.
It frequently happens that a wreck can more easily and with greater economy be demolished in place or removed and sunk at some suitable location without going to the heavy expense of having the wreck raised and towed to a port or place where it can be offered for sale. In many cases the salvage would not cover the expenditure.
The amendment to section 16 of the act as proposed in this bill provides that the minister may recover the cost of marking, removing or destroying any wreck, vessel or other thing causing an obstruction to navigation, from the owner, master or person in charge of the vessel, or from the person responsible for the obstruction, without the necessity of having the wreck sold. In any case, where a sale of the salvage is made, the owner or person entitled to the property would be credited with the surplus of the proceeds resulting from the sale after deducting the expenses of the department in connection with the removal of the wreck.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a brief statement in connection with the new part IV of the act, as proposed in the bill at present before us, and I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the fact that this new part deals with the emergency regulations for the security of the great lakes and upper St. Lawrence navigation system. Since these come within the

scope of the administration of the Department of Labour, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) is in attendance to supply any information which may be required by hon. members.
The purpose of the new part IV of the Navigable Waters Protection Act is to give authority to the governor in council to enact regulations applicable to seamen on Canadian ships on the great lakes and upper St. Lawrence for the safety and security of Canada, of a nature similar to the great lakes seamen's security regulations, order in council P.C. 2306 of May 2, 1952. These regulations were made under the powers conferred by the Emergency Powers Act, which lapsed on May 31, 1954.
The great lakes seamen's security regulations were first enacted by order in council P.C. 1439 of March 22, 1951, and were designed for the purpose of ensuring that the safety or security of Canada was not endangered by the presence of seamen on board a Canadian ship in the great lakes and upper St. Lawrence river who are found to be undesirable security risks.
The regulations serve to protect the welfare and security of Canada, and were adopted in the light of the existing international situation. However, hon. members should be informed that they were worked out following consultation with the United States authorities and they complement and parallel the United States security screening provisions applicable to seamen employed on United States vessels operating in these waters.
As administered by the Department of Labour through its own officers, and those of the national employment service, it is necessary under the regulations for seamen seeking employment on Canadian ships operating in these waters to be in possession of a seaman's card.
Provisions are contained in the regulations for the refusal or revocation of a seaman's card by the Minister of Labour, if a screening process brings to light any evidence that is derogatory from a security standpoint. Where a seaman's card has been refused or revoked, the seaman may request a review by an advisory committee which now consists of a retired judge of the exchequer court and two representatives of organized labour.
The Minister of Labour is authorized by order to exempt from the operation of the regulations any person or class of persons or any ship or class of ships. Under this authority the minister has by order exempted persons employed on boats engaged in fishing, pulpwood and logging operations, where they
Navigable Waters Protection Act do not, as a general rule, pass through any canal or lock; crews of police patrol boats and firefighting boats; and casual labourers employed on salvage or dredging operations.
Penalties are provided for the furnishing of false information as well as for failure to comply with any provision of the regulations. These penalties under the former regulations were of the same extent as are authorized in this new legislation.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, as we come close to the end of the session it seems that we are confronted with a number of measures which raise as important issues as could conceivably come before this house at any time.
What has just been placed before us for consideration at this moment raises a fundamental issue which in other days might well have aroused the most vigorous expression of public feeling from one end of this country to the other, as it has in other countries where measures similar to this have been put forward.
In so far as the first part of the bill is concerned, under clause 1, I do not think there is much necessity to extend my remarks. The provisions are fairly clear-cut, though there may be questions about detail. The part to which my remarks particularly refer is the last part of the bill to which a brief reference has been made by the parliamentary assistant.
Part IV consists of section 33 which defines a Canadian ship; defines the term "great lakes" as applied to this act; and defines the word "seaman" as applied to this act. But section 34 under part IV is the more important section. Before discussing that, I should mention that section 35 refers to duration and provides that the act may be continued in force for a period of three years from the date on which it comes into force.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Just that part of the act.


George Alexander Drew: Yes. The provision is as follows:
This part shall continue in force for a period of three years from the day on which it came into force, and no longer.
As has been stated by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transport, section 34 has the effect of continuing, in statutory form, an order in council made originally under the Emergency Powers Act as P.C. 2306 of May 2, 1952. Mr. Speaker, on various occasions objection has been taken on this side of the house to the wide and all-embracing powers conferred by that order in council and by similar orders in council which place the employment of the individual, his right to work and, in fact, his legal status as a Canadian citizen, in the hands of the

Navigable Waters Protection Act governor in council who is given wide-open authority to make regulations which will affect the daily life of the individual who works on the ships in our great lakes. If this power was objectionable in the form of an order in council under a statute, it is many times as objectionable in the form of a statute which would specifically confer these wide powers by the authority of parliament.
For years we argued against the continuance of the Emergency Powers Act. Finally, under the pressure of our continued insistence, that act was allowed to drop. We welcome, even at this late date, the abandonment of a measure that was, in our opinion, undemocratic at any time and was certainly utterly undemocratic at a time when the reasons which had been used to support its original enactment had substantially disappeared. We are now asked to confer upon the governor in council-which means the government- the power to make such regulations as are considered necessary or desirable in the interests of the safety or security of Canada respecting the employment of seamen on board Canadian ships in the great lakes. Subject to certain limitations the governor in council-or the government in fact-may then impose penalties not exceeding a fine of $500 or imprisonment for a term of three months or both fine and imprisonment.
Mr. Speaker, we have had a number of discussions with regard to the unsatisfactory situation which arises in connection with steps taken in relation to what is described as security, where the basis upon which those security provisions which will be in force is not fully stated to parliament and is not declared in clear statutory form. The parliamentary assistant to the minister just made a statement which I would impress upon all hon. members in dealing with this subject. He indicated that this legislation would permit appropriate steps to be taken to prevent the presence on Canadian ships in the great lakes of those who have been found to be undesirable security risks. May I emphasize and re-emphasize those words: To prevent the presence on Canadian ships in the great lakes of those who have been found to be undesirable security risks. Mr. Speaker, by what test have they been found to be undesirable security risks? By whom have they been found to be undesirable security risks? Is it because they are communists? Is it because they are associated with communists? Or is it for some other reason which has not yet been mentioned?
Most certainly this parliament should not by statutory authority confer power of that kind upon the government now or at any


other time where we are not actually confronted with the immediate and dreadful necessities of war which limit the time within which parliament can deal with problems of this kind. The one excuse that can ever be offered in wartime, or in a state of apprehended war, or in the period immediately following a war, for limiting the rights of the individual, under our traditions and laws, is that the impact of war or the threat of war limits the opportunity to offer to the individual those ordinary rights which we should so jealously preserve. Then there may also be questions of secrecy involved, but they certainly do not apply at a time when we are living as close to normal as most of us will live for the rest of our lives. Unless we are prepared to concede that we are never going to return to real democracy in Canada, now is the time to get back to the principles of democracy because we are as close to normal as we are likely to be within our lifetime.
This section makes it possible for the government to deal with the rights of the individual according to its own concept of what is good for the safety of Canada. Throughout the history of our democratic system, Mr. Speaker, it has been the purpose of the parliaments which have followed our traditions not to leave the safety of the individual to the whim of any government, no matter how highly we may regard their personal desires to be fair, honest and just. We recognize the fact that human beings, under stress, are likely to do things that do not conform to the strict tenets of our democratic standards of justice and freedom. We have therefore insisted upon the supremacy of parliament to pass laws and upon the rule of law which says that no man shall be imprisoned or limited in his rights except by a law which defines his position in society and the offence for which he is to be haled before the courts.
This section leaves the matter wide open. No matter how much any one of us may dislike communism or no matter how much we may hate it, we should not go to this length. No matter how much I may hate communism, as I do, I am not prepared to entrust this or any other government with the decision as to what constitutes communism when this government has said that it cannot define communism. It says that it cannot define communism or communist activities for the purpose of the Criminal Code. It says that any attempt to do so might be entering the field of political thought and political freedom. May I say this, Mr. Speaker. If the government cannot define communism for that purpose, it should not be entrusted with the power to say what communism is when

it is acting behind closed doors and when the man who may be affected has no opportunity to defend himself before the courts. Yet that is precisely what we are asked to do. We are asked to give the government undefined powers which are not subject to supervision by the courts and which are not subject to the regular processes of appeal which assure that even our impartial judges may be corrected where they have erred, as they so often do in good faith, as the judgments on appeal demonstrate when we look at them from time to time.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to labour the arguments I have made on this whole problem of delegated legislation. We have argued this question over and over again in relation to other measures. Nevertheless, those arguments become increasingly sound as we see, throughout the world today, the uncertainty in the minds of other people as to what our system of democracy really is. When we try to place before people living under authoritarian governments the virtues of democracy they say to us: Well, do you not give people the power to limit freedom, to deny people work by dictate, as we do? If one is honest the answer is: Yes, in certain cases we do. If we want to be able to convince others of the purity of our democratic process, let us avoid as we would avoid the plague the adoption in the name of convenience of those methods which, under the name of democracy, are nothing but authoritarian dictates no matter what we call them.
Here is a case before us where, without in any way challenging the good faith of the government or the intentions with which it puts this bill before us, the opportunity is afforded to remind them that when we seek to impress upon our own people and others the virtue and value of democracy and freedom we should make sure that the laws we pass conform to the strict principles of that system which we hail as having such great virtue. It is not, as a matter of fact, something new, something that has not been discussed. It is more than four hundred years since people thought they had dealt with legislation of this kind.
There was, as many people will recall so well, a principle of delegated authority known as the Henry VIII clause under which Henry VIII, by an act of parliament, was given certain powers of proclamation extending his authority beyond the ordinary supervision of parliament. That in itself was regarded with some concern in those days when we had not advanced nearly as far as we have in recent years toward the modern concept of the responsibility of parliament. That Henry VIII clause, however, was regarded even
Navigable Waters Protection Act then as something that departed from the full authority and responsibility of parliament. In recent years there has been a return on far too wide a scale to what we know as the Henry VIII clause.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is something that should not be before us now because whatever may be thought necessary in the form of ordinary administrative legislation we certainly should not limit the rights of the individual in this way. The arguments that were put forward by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in support of the method of screening civil servants, to which we so strongly object, did at least relate to the employment of civil servants who are under the authority of the government. Unsound though we consider the argument presented on that occasion, that argument cannot be put forward in support of the present situation because these men are not employees of the government of Canada.
The parliamentary assistant to the minister has said that this provision was worked out following consultation with the United States authorities and that it parallels the United States security provisions. Without any reflection upon the United States or the United States government, and retaining the great admiration I have for the government and the people of that country for many of the excellent things they have done, the way that the government of the United States acts in relation to security is not something that I want to see repeated here in Canada in any form. That is not a guide for us today. The methods by which they are dealing with security, by television, by radio and through the press, are something that it would be wise for us to regard as an example of that which we should not do rather than as an example to follow.
However, there is one reason why perhaps security measures on their side might be satisfactory and yet not be satisfactory for us. It must be remembered that under the rules of the congress of the United States there are wide-open committee inquiries which make it possible for the representatives of the people to find out what has been done on any occasion with respect to any individual in a case of this kind. We may or may not like that method. At least it brings the matter out into the open. This loose method, which we do not regard as satisfactory in relation to employees of the government, is much more unsatisfactory in relation to other employees.
One of the provisions in this measure is that the governor in council, which is the government, may make such regulations as are considered necessary or desirable in the
5702	HOUSE OF
Navigable Waters Protection Act interests of the safety or security of Canada. Then we are told that one of the ways in which this is to be enforced is by the revocation of the certificate that the seaman has. This brings me to a further reason why I have some concern about these special provisions relating to seamen on the great lakes. We have heard already in the house some reference to a man named Hal C. Banks. This subject is one which will be discussed at greater length on another occasion, but when the government seeks methods of this kind to permit it to deal with safety and security measures with regard to seamen it perhaps is appropriate that we recognize the almost limitless power of this man, Hal C. Banks, with relation to seamen working on the great lakes because of his authority over the unions operating on the lakes.
I have great concern about the way in which the government deals with this problem when I find that they have shown such an extraordinary lack of interest with regard to the background of Mr. Hal C. Banks. The government approved, and in approving accepted its own responsibility, Mr. Banks as our representative at a certain labour conference at Geneva. Mr. Banks has also been permitted to stay in Canada not in his original capacity as a special organizer brought here for a particular purpose but with the idea of his becoming a resident of the country. We know that the government was informed about Mr. Banks' background before he came here. Mr. Banks, because of the position he occupies, receives very large sums of money from the seamen of Canada. I think the government is well aware of how large those sums are, running into hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Mr. Banks also has very wide powers respecting the right of seamen to work on the great lakes through his position in these unions. Yet the government was aware and is aware that Mr. Banks had a record in the United States that would not ordinarily commend him to a position of great responsibility with regard to matters of this kind. The government is well aware that convictions for very serious offences were registered against this man in the United States. The government is well aware that he showed his appreciation of the hospitality extended to him in Canada by getting convicted here for smuggling a large quantity of cigarettes very shortly after his arrival.


Walter Edward Harris: I had expected this debate might arise on my estimates, Mr. Speaker, and I would not want to engage in it here at the moment. What my hon. friend has said is not quite correct. If we leave it at that, we will not get into another debate.


George Alexander Drew: In what way is it not correct?


Walter Edward Harris: He did not smuggle the
cigarettes.


George Alexander Drew: Does the minister suggest he was not convicted in connection with smuggling cigarettes?


Walter Edward Harris: He was convicted of having cigarettes that had been smuggled, which is a slightly different matter.


George Alexander Drew: He was convicted in connection with the smuggling of some 30,000 cigarettes.


Walter Edward Harris: No, the conviction was with respect to having cigarettes which did not have the excise tax stamp.


George Alexander Drew: He was a receiver of smuggled
cigarettes?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I remind hon. members that they are now considering the second reading of a bill. Great latitude has been afforded to hon. members to debate the second reading of this bill, but I do feel we should not anticipate the committee stage.


George Alexander Drew: I was referring, Mr. Speaker, to the statement in connection with the certificates seamen must have, and pointing out that along with the certificates which the government could grant there are also those certificates which are given under the authority and influence of a man named Hal C. Banks. I should like to refer the minister to a summary, which I know to be in his possession, of the charges and convictions concerning this man, and which refers to smuggling cigarettes in Montreal for which this man was fined in 1952. If there is some refinement in regard to the details, that is something I should be happy to hear about in more detail. However, that is the entry on the form which I know was placed before the minister in connection with this matter.
I come back to this, that we are told one of the things the government would be directed to do under these orders is to deal with the right of a seaman to work by revocation of a certificate or otherwise. Perhaps I shall not go farther as to the government's interest in this until we do discuss the matter in detail on the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. There is also the question of the right to work over which this man to whom I have referred, and about whose activities the government is so well informed, has some control. I put that forward for no other purpose than to refer to the introduction of the subject by the parliamentary assistant.
I point out that we should not be passing any loose regulations of this kind submitting the seamen on our ships to any possible

restriction of their right to work, unless we know exactly what the grounds are upon which they will be denied the right to work. I should like to be sure that in this country anyone who is actively working for that international form of treachery known as communism would be dealt with properly under our laws. I believe that should not be done unless there is a law defining what the offence is. I believe it could be defined in the Criminal Code, and I believe that is the place for it to be defined. I then believe we might well be asked to consider a section of this kind that would say that a man convicted of any offence under the Criminal Code, which has to do with loyalty to Canada or loyalty to the state, shall not be permitted to work on these ships. This would be following the proper practices under our traditional procedure. To say, however, that the government shall have a wide-open power according to its whim at any time to say who can work and who cannot work, what shall constitute an offence and what shall not, to define a crime and impose a penalty without parliament's knowledge, is in my belief a step retrograde by 400 years. This carries us back to what has so long been known to lawyers as the Henry VIII clause. I would point out that even the Henry VIII clause was not as wide open as that. I believe this is a good time, when we are talking about the struggle between freedom and democracy on the one hand and totalitarian authority on the other, to make sure we do get back to the supremacy of parliament and the rule of law. I, therefore, shall oppose the section.


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: I wonder whether the next speaker would mind if I made a few remarks at this juncture. It is not my desire to enter into the debate, and my only reason for doing so is to clear up perhaps one or two points that were left by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and also add to what was said by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transport. I believe the Leader of the Opposition inferred just now that under the regulations, and consequently under this bill, it was proposed that the Minister of Labour should be given authority to define "communism" as such. I can assure him that was not the object of the regulations, and certainly it is not in the bill which refers to regulations considered "necessary or desirable in the interests of safety or security of Canada." There is no reference whatever to communism and there is certainly no reference to the part played by the leaders of labour organizations.
The purpose of part IV of the bill now before the house is to provide legislative authority to continue the powers granted
Navigable Waters Protection Act to me, as Minister of Labour, by the great lakes seamen's security regulations. As the parliamentary assistant has said, these were originally established by order in council P.C. 1439 of March 22, 1951, under the authority of the Emergency Powers Act. They were later amended and finally consolidated by order in council P.C. 2306 of May 2, 1952.
The Emergency Powers Act lapsed on May 31 this year, but because the government did not ask parliament to extend the life of that legislation it does not necessarily follow that all the authority it provided can prudently be permitted to vanish with it. The government has carefully examined all the orders made under this act and has reluctantly concluded that, in a few cases, present circumstances require that other enabling legislation must be sought. The great lakes seamen's security regulations is such a case. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition and the house that it certainly would be the desire of the Minister of Labour and the government, if it were at all possible, to follow some other course than taking this step now proposed, if there were a practical course.
These regulations require all seamen plying the great lakes system in Canadian vessels to obtain an identity card, known as a seaman's card, issued by the Department of Labour, without which they may not sail. The Minister of Labour is empowered to refuse such a seaman's card to any applicant whose presence on board a Canadian vessel in the great lakes might prejudice the security of Canada. There is no reference there to the question of communism.
Hon. members will no doubt recall the circumstances under which these regulations were first established. In the summer of 1950 the United Nations took action to resist the aggression of North Korea against the republic of Korea. At that time, there was naturally very close consultation between the governments of Canada and of the United States on all matters pertaining to the police action of the United Nations in the Korean conflict. And, of course, that consultation and co-operation has existed and continued all through the piece. The question of national security in both countries was reviewed with particular care and it was agreed that special measures should be taken to afford greater protection against possible sabotage in that very important link in our transcontinental transportation facilities, namely the great lakes-St. Lawrence system. Consequently, co-ordinated steps were taken in both countries before the opening of the following navigation season. That was
5704	HOUSE OF
Navigable Waters Protection Act the season of 1951. This was done by presidential directive in the United States and by order of the governor in council in Canada.
Although more than 30,000 applications have been received and processed since that time, I am very happy to say that it has not been my unpleasant duty except on very rare occasions to refuse cards to these applicants. In these infrequent cases, the applicant's loyalty had been in such serious doubt, and hence the risk to a vital communications system was sufficiently grave, that I had no alternative, in conscience, but to refuse identity cards to this handful of people Only a tiny fraction of the seamen involved have had to be prevented from sailing, but of course only a tiny fraction would' have been required to do damage. Whether or not such persons would in fact run the risk of committing acts of sabotage we cannot say with certainty; but we do know that such acts have been committed elsewhere with serious results.
While I had intended to give the information at the committee stage, perhaps at this stage the house would like to have a summary of the figures under the regulations.
As of April 26, 1954, a total of 30,540 applications had been received and processed under the regulations. Some of the applications were imperfect, and the persons who made the applications could not be traced when the national employment service attempted to follow them up. Of the remainder, 29,971 were sent to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for checkmg. Of these, a total of 29,571 had been screened, while 400 cases were still under investigation.
Of the 29,571 applicants screened, a total of 29,422 were cleared and 149 applications were questioned.
Of the 149 cases which were questioned for the reason that information had been received having a possible bearing on security, 122 were cleared as the result of a study of the circumstances by the minister's panel of advisers, while 20 were refused regular seamen's cards and seven cases were in abeyance, pending a decision as to whether or not cards should be issued when the individuals can be traced.
As of April 26, 1954, seven of the persons denied cards had made requests for a review of their cases by the minister's advisory committee. In the case of one of these, further investigation resulted in the person being cleared without a review by the minister s advisory committee. In three cases the committee confirmed the minister's decision to refuse a seaman's card. Two requests for review lapsed, one for the reason that the


subject was deported and no further action was required under the great lakes security regulations, and the other for the reason that the person concerned did not present himself for a hearing. One request was still pending at that date.
During recent weeks, the government has discussed at some length with United States authorities the possibility of allowing these regulations to lapse with the Emergency Powers Act. In the light of the present international situation, however, we have come to the conclusion that it would be imprudent not to continue these regulations. I regret that it has not been possible to introduce this measure before now. However, the vast majority of the seamen now sailing the great lakes have already been screened and, if parliament sees fit to approve the measure now submitted for its consideration, no great harm can come from this short hiatus between the date of the expiration of the Emergency Powers Act and the present time. I should add that it is not this government's intention that these security control measures should continue indefinitely, and that is why enabling legislation is now being sought for a period of three years only. If, at the end of three years, present international tensions have not slackened, it may be necessary for the government to ask parliament to renew this section of the bill for a further period. If, on the other hand, there should be sufficient improvement in the international situation before then, the government will be only too glad to take the first opportunity to cancel the regulations even before the enabling legislation has ceased to have effect.


Mr, Drew:: Mr. Speaker, without attempting to enter the debate again, in view of the explanation given by the minister and conceding immediately that there must be some regulatory authority in regard to possible sabotage, can the minister explain why it is desirable to have such wide-open and undefined powers as these, instead of having some over-all section of the Criminal Code or, if necessary, a separate act which would apply to all vital means of transportation, and such vital operations as hydroelectric power plants -which, perhaps, are even more critical than ships, in the general picture of security.
I would ask the minister if consideration has been given to the enactment of a provision that would apply to all these, rather than attempt to put it in, piecemeal, in a single act, with such indefinite authority as is contained in this section?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that other hon. members who wish to participate in the debate

should do so, so that we can reach the committee stage and have answered the various questions which apparently hon. members are anxious to ask.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words in connection with this bill. Earlier this morning the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) mentioned that, because of some phenomenon of which he was not aware at the moment, he had found himself in accord with the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) on a number of occasions. At this time I find myself in the same position in respect of the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition.


George Alexander Drew: Do not become alarmed by it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But it is not a threesome.


Angus MacInnis: I am not shutting out the Secretary of State. Indeed, I would be glad to include him.
According to the explanatory note, there are two purposes in the bill. The first makes provision whereby the minister may recover the cost of marking, removing or destroying a wreck. To that I have no objection.
The second provision in the bill is one whereby the great lakes seamen's security regulations, made under the Emergency Powers Act by order in council P.C. 2306 of May 2, 1952, may be continued in force for a period of three years.
The Emergency Powers Act had a life of one year and, if not renewed, expired at the end of that time. This year it was allowed to expire. We find here the peculiar situation in which the government now wishes to enact by order in council the power it enjoyed under the Emergency Powers Act, and wishes to have that power, not for one year, but for a period of three years.
When we turn to the section to which reference was made by the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) we find this:
The governor in council may make such regulations as he considers necessary or desirable in the interests of the safety or security of Canada respecting the employment of seamen on board Canadian ships in the great lakes.
We have spent several sessions, or parts of several sessions, on the Criminal Code, in which all items that could be connected with sabotage, or anything done that was contrary to the security and interests of Canada were provided for by law. We have the law in the Criminal Code to provide for such things. Why is it necessary now that the government may prescribe the penalties to be imposed on summary conviction for
9, 1954
Navigable Waters Protection Act violation of any regulation made under this clause? No one knows what the regulations may be, but we are supposed to approve the penalties laid down in the act. It is said that:
. . . such penalties shall not exceed a fine of five hundred dollars or Imprisonment for a term of three months or both fine and imprisonment.
To me it is a most amazing thing, particularly when we have spent years, let us say, on perfecting a Criminal Code, that we should be asked by the government now to give them the authority to impose penalties for crimes which they have not defined. I just cannot conceive of that as being good law for the Dominion of Canada. It might be for some other countries, but it is not a good precedent for this country to follow.
There may be some difficulties here, but surely we can get around them without resorting to this kind of legislation or the kind of governmental action that is outlined in this bill. If we adopt it here, are we not setting the precedent for adopting it in other circumstances? The Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) shakes his head, but my understanding is that as a matter of fact the situation is becoming such now that the moment the government finds itself, or thinks it will find itself, faced with any opposition in the house in regard to any measure, the next step is to circumvent that by bringing the thing about by order in council. We had an indication of that yesterday, and it is becoming the normal thing.
I suggest that this is a very dangerous precedent to follow. I cannot understand the minister, who I know has a high regard for the rights of citizens, the laws of this country and the rule of law, supporting this legislation. This is not the rule of law at all. How can he propose a measure of this kind? During the luncheon recess he should have another look at it to see if there is not some other way to meet any situation that we may be confronted with on the great lakes.


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: I should like to suggest to the ministers concerned other considerations in addition to those put forward by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis) which they might take into consideration during the luncheon recess, and as a result of which I express the sincere hope that it would be decided as being in accord with the traditions of this country if this particular proposal were abandoned.
The Leader of the Opposition has referred to our intense dislike of and our opposition to any suggestion that the government should be given the right in advance to define crimes,

Navigable Waters Protection Act which definition would not have the approval of parliament, because parliament would know nothing about it, and to impose penalties on Canadian citizens for the commission of those crimes which in themselves were not known as such to the Canadian citizens as crimes. In addition, sir, the Leader of the Opposition has said that in our view it is time, if Canadian seamen or any other group of Canadian citizens are to be proceeded against because they are considered to be undesirable security risks, that what we mean by an offence against security in that general sense should be defined in the general law, and that no one group of citizens should be singled out for treatment different from any other.
In answering that proposition the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) stated that these regulations which it is desired to continue now under the authority of this bill, if it becomes law, have no reference to communist activities. Well, sir, that of course is a statement which I respectfully suggest-


Milton Fowler Gregg: I said no relation to communism as such.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Very well. I respectfully suggest that on reflection the minister will realize that is not an accurate summary of the situation. The inaccuracy of that position can be gathered by a reference to the words which the Minister of Labour himself used. He referred to the necessity of those regulations because of the protection which they give against sabotage. He also referred to the application of the regulations whereby seamen's cards had been withheld-and I am quoting his words here as I took them down- because the applicants' loyalty had been in such serious doubt that it was considered necessary to withhold them. He said that certain of the applications had been sent to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for checking and screening. Well, there can be no question in the mind of any reasonable man that what was suspected in this case was that the applicant had communist sympathies. That is what this business of screening means.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Are communists the only traitors? Is every traitor a communist?


Edmund Davie Fulton: By no means; but the Minister of Labour has said, and the Minister of Justice himself knows of course, that these regulations were brought in at the time of communist aggression against Korea. It was suspected that those who might commit acts of sabotage, following that outbreak of hostilities in Korea, would do so because of their sympathy with what was going on in Korea, and that they would be communists or communist sympathizers. I do not think the point really merits further discussion because it is

the merest verbiage to try to suggest to us that those regulations do not have as their object the refusal of cards to seamen on the ground that they are suspected of communist sympathies.
Since it is one o'clock, I might continue the debate after luncheon.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose for lunch at one o'clock I was just detailing some of the objections we felt to the method being followed of providing for the security of Canada, and for security screening authority which is to be given under this bill to the governor in council to make regulations providing for the screening of seamen, and providing penalties which in effect give them power to try a crime and impose a penalty for that crime.
We take the position in connection with this matter of security that the offence envisaged in what constitutes a breach of security or loyalty to Canada should be defined under statute, and that all persons should then be in the same position so that a man cannot be proceeded against except for a breach of a provision to which parliament has agreed, and not of one laid down by governor in council.
As the result of departure from the principle embodied in that type of legislation, and as a result of the action which the government has taken here, you can see, Mr. Speaker, that we are getting ourselves into an absurd situation.
Not only is it undesirable from the point of view of the principle involved; it is absurd in its application in this instance. What has happened here is that we have brought in an amendment to the Navigable Waters Protection Act and that act, up to the present time and by its very nature, is concerned with the matter of the provision of aids to navigation, and the physical surroundings of our waterways. Then suddenly, as an addition and as a sort of bunion on the body of the act, we have something which deals with an entirely different subject, the matter of the security of Canada from the point of view of whether or not a person is loyal, and whether his security qualifications are acceptable to the government. That has nothing to do with the protection of navigable waters.
The place in which to lay down your security provisions is in the Criminal Code,

the statute having to do with the provisions which are applicable to all the people of Canada, and not by way of an addendum or appendix to a bill in which it forms a most unnatural part.
What is going to be the result of this sort of situation? Are we to suggest that it is more essential or more desirable that seamen should be loyal and should be qualified, from the point of view of security, more on the great lakes than in any other port in Canada? Are the seamen working on the boats plying between Vancouver and Victoria in a less strategic position to do damage to Canada than those on the great lakes? Of course, the consideration given to these men is exactly the same, but because there is no general law defining what is meant by offences of this type there is to be this excrescence, in the technical meaning of that word, on the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
What is going to follow is that we will have to have a number of individual statutes covering a number of individual cases whenever security is felt to be of importance in employment of this type. Therefore, that is one other illustration of the desirability of getting this thing out of statutes of this sort and having it covered by general enactments so that all the people of Canada know where they stand.
I feel it may be interesting and proper to observe that in this case, Mr. Speaker, under the regulations which were enacted under the Emergency Powers Act on May 2, 1952, there is provision for a method of appeal by a person who feels himself aggrieved as a result of a decision by the minister. I make that remark in passing because I think it is interesting in the light of the recent discussion we had here when it was held that there could be no possibility of an appeal procedure.
But, sir, that is merely <an observation in passing, and I think that the important thing for the House of Commons to bear in mind in this case is the principle involved.
It is certainly important that those engaged in navigation in Canada should be loyal and should not have communist sympathies. But while it is desirable to ensure that, I think this House of Commons has to ask itself the question whether it is proper to give the governor in council authority to lay down standards of security and standards of loyalty which are not communicated to the people as a whole, and in effect, provide for a crime by regulation instead of under the Criminal Code or some general statutes.
I am convinced that it is possible to do it in the other way and that this constitutes
9, 1954
Navigable Waters Protection Act a breach of the principles of democracy. I therefore have no alternative but to vote against the bill on second reading for these reasons, as well as for those given by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis).


Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I am in full agreement with the previous speakers regarding their opposition to section 4 of this bill. The two houses of parliament have spent a total period of some three or four years revising the Criminal Code. There is included in that code just about every possible offence the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) and his department could think of over that period of years.
The Criminal Code is supposed to provide for the safety and security of Canada in so far as all citizens are concerned. But what the government is asking for in this legislation is the privilege of writing a special criminal code to apply to seamen on the great lakes.
It is quite possible that the prevailing conditions of employment for seamen on the great lakes may differ somewhat from the conditions of employment pertaining to employees in other fields, but surely it would be more democratic, if such a difference exists, to have these special offences written into the legislation so that all may know what these offences are for which a penalty up to $500 or three months' imprisonment can be imposed.
The government here is asking not only for the incorporation into legislation of orders in council which have been passed pertaining to the employment of seamen, but also for a blanket order to make any regulations, including those which were made under the Emergency Powers Act, for the next three years covering the employment of seamen on the great lakes.
We in this house all agree that democratic freedom should not extend to the point of giving to the enemies of democracy the freedom to destroy democracy itself. On the other hand, if in our defence of democracy we adopt the techniques of the dictators- and that is what the government is doing in asking for this power and it is what parliament will be doing in granting the government the power for which they ask under this legislation-there is a danger that we shall undermine the whole spirit of democracy. As a result of its long tenure of office and as a result of its overwhelming majority in parliament, it would seem to me that this government has gradually, bit by bit, taken unto itself more and more power. Perhaps

Navigable Waters Protection Act unconsciously here they are asking lor just a little bit more power, namely the power to write a special criminal code that shall apply to a special group of people, namely the Canadian seamen employed on the great lakes.
I think that is asking too much of this house. II there are prevailing special conditions requiring special regulations, for the breach of which penalties of $500 or three months' imprisonment must be applied, then let us know what they are and let us have them incorporated into legislation or into the Criminal Code; but let us not give to the government any blanket order to make any regulations they like and to have those who violate those regulations subjected to imprisonment for three months or a fine of $500 for breach of some regulation about which the House of Commons has no knowledge.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take part in this debate but when I perceive a number of my hon. friends on the opposition side taking a position which, I must confess, I myself would take if I entertained what I must regard as the wrong impression of this legislation which they appear to entertain, I think I should try to distinguish between the principle which they think is involved in this legislation and the principle which is actually involved. They have all said that in the Criminal Code we should provide for the security of our country-


Angus MacInnis: We have done so.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -by making a crime those actions which would endanger the security of Canada. With that statement I think no person will disagree. But those hon. members who were on the Criminal Code committee will recall that, as was said by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy), we already have all of these crimes fairly carefully covered in the Criminal Code. Indeed, the very crime which this present bill is designed to protect against is covered under the sabotage section, namely, section 509A of the present code. However, I think the point which my hon. friends overlook is this. Where we have a canal system such as we have on the great lakes, the wrecking of which would tie up an enormous amount of shipping which is absolutely vital to our economic welfare, it would be of extremely small comfort to the Canadian people to know that the man who got on the ship and placed there a bomb which would blow up any of these canals could
[Mr. Nose worthy.)

be then convicted and sent to prison under the section of the Criminal Code prohibiting his crime.
Surely some confusion of thought has arisen here. I believe that this idea that when this matter is covered by the Criminal Code, the idea that we can pass that section of the Criminal Code and say: "Thank goodness we have taken care of the situation", is quite an erroneous one. What we are attempting to do in the present bill and in the seamen's regulations which were passed pursuant to the Emergency Powers Act is not, as is done in the Criminal Code, to make it a crime to do a certain thing and then, after it is done, to punish the person who is guilty of doing it. What we are endeavouring to do here is to prevent a crime from taking place by taking just some elementary precautions to see to it that that small fraction of Canadian seamen who might likely commit an act of sabotage on the great lakes are denied access to a position in which they could commit an act of sabotage.
I will agree that the powers here are rather extraordinary and that, if they were handled in an arbitrary manner, abuses could result. But when the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) this morning told us that in respect of approximately 30,500 applications for seamen's cards which had been received under those regulations, less than two dozen had been rejected, I think that any Canadian with any sense of proportion at all will find it hard to believe that out of some 30,000 odd applicants for seamen's cards, the denial to less than two dozen Canadians of access to key points on our canal system is a fairly small price to pay for the protection of the greatest internal shipping route in Canada.
I do not think there is any member of this house who does not know as a most simple fact that if the Welland canal, for example, were put out of operation for any considerable period of time, the economic loss to this country would be almost incalculable. Surely to goodness it is not unreasonable that we should ask for precautions to be taken under which, out of some 30,000 applicants, less than two dozen seamen are denied access to a position in which sabotage might be committed by them. If this government did not take a step so simple and so elementary as that, I think that it would be deserving of condemnation.
It therefore seems quite idle to argue that there is involved here the idea that we have discharged our responsibility to the Canadian people by prohibiting sabotage, as we did in the Criminal Code, and by saying "Thank

goodness that question has been taken care of; we do not need to worry about that". Surely the Canadian people expect us to take these other precautions; and we take them, may I say, Mr. Speaker, without an unwarranted interference with civil liberties.
My friend the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) said that he was not inconsistent because he had always advocated that in the Criminal Code we should prohibit communism. He also said he thought a definition of communism could be devised under which it would be possible to prohibit it. But if we attempted to prohibit communism we should be making it a crime for a man to hold and to preach certain political doctrines. In this way, it seems to me, we would be clearly interfering with his freedom of thought and of speech. But even those who believe in freedom of thought and of speech will nevertheless condemn overt acts of disloyalty to their country. Here we are not attempting to condemn these overt acts but rather we are trying to prevent them. In reply to what the Leader of the Opposition said this morning I would say that it would be quite wrong for us to put any provision in the Criminal Code which would make it a crime for a man to entertain or to attempt to inculcate ideas, but when he passes from ideas to disloyal overt acts then the most free country in the world is entitled to take steps for its protection against his disloyalty. The only question that arises then is as to whether such steps are reasonable.
I think my hon. friends will have quite a hard time convincing the majority of the Canadian people that steps that are taken which deny access for less than 24 seamen out of 30,000 odd to positions in which they might commit sabotage are unreasonable. I do not think my hon. friend will ever be able to convince the Canadian people that that is the case.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) has spent several minutes in vehemently knocking down a straw man of his own creation. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) said this morning quite frankly that he realized there had to be regulations. Indeed, he broadened out the problem and mentioned in particular the danger of sabotage in hydroelectric installations. His suggestion to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) was that the situation should not be left in this wide-open uncontrolled manner but that there should be some measure of spelling out in the statute. The Leader of the Opposition was very oractical about it. As I say, he
Navigable Waters Protection Act did not believe at all in the position suggested by the Minister of Justice. Of course he would be in favour of prevention, as the Minister of Justice said. Of course he did not argue that we should wait until the trouble was over and then seek to punish somebody when the damage was done. The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) also suggested something along the same lines.
I think we hoped that there might be a reply from the Minister of Labour. Meanwhile it is not surprising that we see our old friend back again. When we see the emergency powers bill, which we thought we had buried on the 31st of May, alive and kicking again on the 9th of June, it almost reminds one of the old saying, the king is dead, long live the king. I understand there is a French proverb, plus ga change, plus c'est la meme chose. Here it is back again. It is not surprising that we are a little troubled. We were told last night that any special powers were justified on the ground of flexibility. That is a blessed word. I have looked it up and I understand that it means you can be pushed around easily, that you are very malleable. Perhaps we in the opposition have got to that stage.
I do not wish to take up time, but let me say again that the Minister of Justice has been knocking down a straw man. He has entirely misrepresented what the Leader of the Opposition said. What the Leader of the Opposition said, and I think I may say the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis) agreed, is that the way the section reads now the governor in council may prescribe penalties to be imposed on summary conviction for violation of any regulation made under this section. That does not sound as if it were restricted to the rather limited application outlined by the Minister of Justice, that all that is going to be done is to prevent some evil-disposed person from sailing on the ships, with which we will all agree.
As the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway said, the way this now reads it does not sound like the rule of law but like the rule of the cabinet. That was what the Leader of the Opposition was objecting to. Again, at the risk of repetition, let me say that he pointed out most clearly that he realized there should be regulations and it was a question of how they were to be proposed and to what extent they could be spelled out so that parliament could have a hand in the matter, instead of its being behind closed doors and in some mysterious fashion that nobody knows about.
5710	HOUSE OF
Navigable Waters Protection Act


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have been following the discussion on this question, and I sense that even the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) are not too happy over what they consider to be the necessity for the introduction of a measure of this kind.


Mr. Mclvor:: They look happy.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: In other words, they would prefer it if the situation were not such as to make the introduction of this sort of measure necessary as they view the situation. It seems to me that, in the words of the minister, if the powers granted here were abused it could be a dangerous thing in a democratic society. For that reason I believe that members of the house should scrutinize carefully the introduction of this type of legislation which singles out a certain segment of the working people of Canada for a special form of attention.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) pointed out the sort of thing that could happen. He asked why, if such a provision were going to be made applicable to seamen on the great lakes, it should not also apply to workers in power plants. If it were made applicable to workers in power plants why should it not apply also, for example, to workers in the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company in British Columbia? One thing could lead to another.
For that reason I think the house should at least canvass all possible alternatives to the approach to this matter that is taken by the proposed amendment to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. I have taken the trouble to look at the Canada Shipping Act which in part III deals with matters affecting seamen. It seems to me that some of the problems that are supposed to be dealt with by the proposed amendment to the Navigable Waters Protection Act are in a sense covered by the Canada Shipping Act. For example, section 250 and following deal with provisions as to discipline. Section 250 reads as follows:
If a master, seaman, or apprentice belonging to a Canadian ship, by wilful breach of duty or by neglect of duty or by reason of drunkenness,
(a)	does any act tending to the immediate loss, destruction, or serious damage of the ships, or tending immediately to endanger the life or limb of a person belonging to or on board the ship,
(b)	refuses or omits to do any lawful act proper and requisite to be done by him for preserving the ship from immediate loss, destruction, or serious damage, or for preserving any person belonging to or on board the ship from immediate danger to life or limb, he is in respect of each offence guilty of an indictable offence.
[Mr. Macdonnell.l

In section 256 there are certain provisions for protecting the master and officers of a ship from assault. Subsection 1 (e) reads as follows:
If he combines with any of the crew to disobey lawful commands, or to neglect duty, or to impede the navigation of the ship or the progress of the voyage, he is liable to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months.
Subsection 1 (f) reads as follows:
If he wilfully damages his ship or steals or wilfully damages any of her stores or cargo, he is liable to forfeit out of his wages a sum equal to the loss thereby sustained, and also, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months.
Subsection 2 says:
Any imprisonment under this section may be with or without hard labour and the court may discharge the seaman from his ship.
Then, section 187, subsection 1, says:
Where a seaman is discharged before a shipping master the master shall make and sign, in a form approved by the minister, or any form approved by the proper authority in that part of Her Majesty's dominions in which the ship is registered, a report of the conduct, character, and qualifications of the seaman discharged, or may state in the said form that he declines to give any opinion upon such particulars, or upon any of them, and the shipping master before whom the discharge is made shall, if the seaman desires, give to him a copy of such report (in this act referred to as the report of character).
Subsection 2 says:
The shipping master shall transmit the reports to the minister, or to such other person as the minister may direct, to be recorded.
Subsection 3 says:
Every person who
(a)	makes a false report of character under this act, knowing the same to be false;
(b)	forges or fraudulently alters any certificate of discharge or report of character or copy of a report of character;
(c)	assists in committing, or procures to be committed, any of such offences as aforesaid; or
(d)	fraudulently uses any certificate of discharge or report of character or copy of a report of character which is forged or altered or does not belong to him;
is in respect of each offence guilty of an indictable offence.
Then, section 258 (1) says:
A seaman who, on or before being engaged, wilfully and fraudulently makes a false statement of the name of his last ship, or alleged last ship, or wilfully and fraudulently makes a false statement of his own name, is for each offence liable to a fine not exceeding twenty-five dollars.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that when we have an act such as the Canada Shipping Act which deals with questions relating to shipping, when we have set forth in that act provisions against offences that will cause damage to a ship or its cargo, when we apparently have wide powers already set up in regard to keeping track of the character

of seamen and provision for any fraudulent representations in that connection, we already have a framework which, possibly with some judicious amendment, would take care of this particular situation. It would cover the dangers outlined by the Minister of Justice, without making the special provisions outlined here that, in effect, give unlimited powers to the governor in council, who would have discretion to make regulations covering the danger of sabotage in the great lakes area. It seems to me some consideration should be given as to whether it would not be possible to deal with the matter under the existing statute. I, for one, would like to hear from the responsible minister some explanation as to why the government apparently prefers to take this approach by the introduction of this new part to the Navigable Waters Protection Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transport, when he spoke introducing this legislation, said that like ancient Gaul it was divided into three parts. I believe it was the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, or if not it was someone in his day in parliament-no, it comes to me now that it was the late Sam Jacobs-who, when confronted with a piece of legislation which had been characterized in that way, replied "Yes, but all the gall is in the third part." That is the way we feel about this bill. There is a good deal of gall in the third part; indeed the government has a good deal of gall in bringing this matter before parliament.
The offensive part of this legislation, Mr. Speaker, is the part having to do with the continuing in force of the regulations affecting great lakes seamen, and it is that which has been discussed for the most part by those who have taken part in this debate. May I point out that this part of the legislation deals with persons, with security and with crimes. Surely, if legislation of this kind was to be brought before parliament it should have been brought in in the name of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson). If it could be argued that it had something to do with labour matters, perhaps there might have been an excuse for it being brought in in the name of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg). But certainly, this provision has no relation to the protection of navigable waters.
In that connection, Mr. Speaker, I am going to make a confession. That may not be a good thing to do in these parts, but I shall take a chance. It happens that the group to which I belong has given me as whip, amongst other duties, the duty of
Navigable Waters Protection Act watching the legislation that comes along and making sure that all matters that we want to discuss are brought to the notice of the particular members in our group who specialize in particular fields.
I knew that legislation respecting great lakes seamen was coming. I saw references in the press to the fact this matter had been discussed in the other place, and I was watching for it. I had already indicated to certain members in our group that when it came here I would draw it to their attention. I believe members generally will agree that not many things around here escape my notice. Despite all that, despite the fact I was watching for this legislation, I missed it. I did not think, when I saw a bill to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act, there would be buried in it a section the purpose of which was to carry forward the great lakes seamen's regulations which were in effect under the Emergency Powers Act.
Now, I make that confession to underline the fact the third part of this bill really has no place in this legislation at all. The Minister of Justice, in his plausible attempt to defend this legislation, talked about the right or duty of the government to take certain elementary precautions. What were the precautions he said the government should take? He said that they should prevent that small minority, and he put it that way, who may be likely to engage in sabotage of one kind or another from obtaining employment on ships plying the great lakes system of this country. That is all he talked about.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend does not put that in precisely the way I put it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will permit the minister to do it, then.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I said, gaining access to a position in which they could commit acts of sabotage; there is quite a difference.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But the section relates to, and puts it in these words, "respecting the employment of seamen on board Canadian ships in the great lakes". I think that, regardless of the words the minister has now used, I have to interpret what he has now said as relating to the gaining of employment on ships plying the great lakes. When one couples what was said by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) with what was said by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), it seems to me it is clear that what is involved in the regulations to be made under this section is the question of employment on ships plying the great lakes.
5712	HOUSE OF
Navigable Waters Protection Act
Since when has it been a crime to seek employment? Since when has it been decided that we shall have on our statute books laws making provision for the imposition of penalties of $500 or imprisonment for three months, or both, for the seeking of employment? There may be a case to be made for screening, which would result in certain people being denied the right to obtain certain employment. And even that would need to be gone into. Other hon. members, including the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), have done so.
But surely there should not be attached to provisions referring to the seeking of employment the right of the government to impose a penalty of $500, or three months' imprisonment, or both fine and imprisonment. I suggest that this is going just a little too far. I do not need to repeat the arguments which have been made by the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis), the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) and others. Surely we should look at this in its proper perspective, and realize that the government is asking, under the pretext of this legislation, for much wider powers than it has any right to have, or to ask parliament to give it.
I plead very strongly and earnestly with the government to reconsider this whole matter. The third part of the bill deals with a subject matter entirely different from the scope of the bill. Like some other measures, it came from the other place, and was dealt with first over there. It was presented to us this morning, not by the Minister of Justice, who should be dealing with matters involving crime and punishment, not by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), who has been responsible in the past for the administration of great lakes seamen's regulations, but by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transport. Even if it had been the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) I do not think it would have been proper. But the fact that it did have all these other involvements has meant that the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Labour have felt that they should participate in this debate.
Mr. Speaker, this parliament is being faced with altogether too much of this kind of legislation. We have too many requests of this kind in which parliament is asked to turn over its rights and powers, and all kinds of authority, to the government. I wonder when the day will come when the government will bring in a bill in which it will ask parliament to give to the government the power to do anything it pleases when parliament is not sitting-whereupon it would probably move that parliament be adjourned.


In my opinion this legislation goes too far. There is far too much gall in the third part of it, and we shall oppose this bill.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for having given me credit for stating my views. I must point out to him however that, while I did rise to my feet on one or two occasions, someone beat me to it. Nevertheless there is something I should like to say.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I must have been reading the hon. member's mind. I did see him on his feet.


Solon Earl Low: The fact is that I have been giving this whole matter the most earnest consideration and attention. Certain thoughts have been running through my mind as I have listened to the debate, and considered the points made by all hon. members, from the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) until the present time.
In the first place, we have no Emergency Powers Act now. Whether that is because hon. members in the opposition have spoken so continuously against it, I cannot say. The fact remains that the government does not have the Emergency Powers Act to fall back upon today.
Then, secondly, everyone knows that today, while we may not have a state of emergency, in reality this is a time of great danger; and certainly the government must have ample authority to meet the dangers that beset us. No one can deny that the government does require perhaps unusual authority to deal with the dangers that beset our country. I would not be averse to giving it ample power to prevent any possible acts of sabotage, or any danger of that kind. I am not so greatly concerned about the matter of giving power to the government. Let us give them all the power they need to deal with the situation realistically and firmly. But I think hon. members who have spoken thus far have made a good case. Certainly we do not want to be parties to giving them powers we do not know about, or that they can extend into greater powers we are not thinking about at the present time.
I believe that is the crux of the whole situation. I should think the government could bring before us an amended section 34 of the Navigable Waters Protection Act spelling out in more or less detail exactly what it requires. I do not think any of us would have any hesitation in giving the government the powers it requires, even to the extent of screening workmen to a point where the government might deny to even more

than two dozen persons the authority or the right to work on ships on which they could commit acts of sabotage.
I am willing to give consideration to any proposal the government may make that would make it clear to us exactly what it is trying to prevent, and what it must do. If the government will spell out something I will be very glad to give it consideration. Under the circumstances, however, I must go along with those who have spoken already against giving wide and indefinite powers as set out in section 34. I would like to hear the minister, or some other member of the government, place before us something in specific terms. If so, I would give it my support.


Mr. Speaker:: Without finding fault with anything that has been said in debate thus far, at this juncture may I observe it strikes me that, while it has been pointed out that there are three parts in the bill, all the debate has revolved around section 34. There has been a complete omission of the other two parts, with which, it would seem, hon. members are in agreement.
It strikes me that this debate could take place in committee on section 34, where the questions hon. members are anxious to ask could be answered. I am led to these remarks by the closing words of the hon. member for Peace River, who is anxious to learn the views of the various ministers concerned with section 34. Apparently no disagreement exists with respect to the other two parts.
I have allowed the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and members who followed in the debate to refer to the sections because this is an amending bill, and perhaps it would have been difficult to discuss it without referring specifically to some of the contents of it. But now, as the debate on second reading carries on and we hear nothing about the other two parts and the entire discussion revolves around section 34 -I am not making a ruling-I ask hon. members whether they would not consider, in the interests of order in the debate, restraining themselves at this moment and carrying on in the fashion they wish in committee on section 34.


Solon Earl Low: I apologize if I was out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member was not out of order. That is not the reason I rose. He suggested that he was anxious to get some replies, and I thought that I would make these observations because, as he does realize, if the parliamentary assistant, who opened the debate on this measure, replied he would close the debate; whereas if we
9, 1954	5713
Navigable Waters Protection Act were in committee on the bill and were discussing section 34 the hon. member could have his reply and could ask any further questions not only of the parliamentary assistant but of others such as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) who have spoken in this debate. The hon. member cannot ask for further clarification before making up his mind because these two ministers cannot speak again. The only one who can speak now would be the parliamentary assistant, who opened the debate on behalf of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier), and should he be called upon to speak again he would close the debate.


Solon Earl Low: Perhaps we could get the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) into this.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: I quite
understand your point and your misgivings about the debate, sir, but with all due respect to you I would point out that a very important part of the principle of this bill is involved in this particular section that shall be nameless. Not only that; there is another principle involved, one to which members of this group and, I think, of the official opposition have taken exception, and that is the principle of including this type of thing in this particular sort of legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: May I at this moment interrupt the hon. member and tell him that these arguments have already been made by three, four or five speakers before him. If I were to put into force the standing order, which I think is standing order 40, to the effect that repetition is not permitted, not only repetition in one's own argument but repetition of the argument of others who have participated in the debate, I think I could perhaps persuade him that he should not pursue his point until we are in committee of the whole on the bill.


Colin Cameron: Then I shall proceed, if I may, to the discussion of what seems to be the important principle of this bill, namely, the inclusion in it of a measure that should be somewhere else, and not only that, but the inclusion of something which obviously will not have the effect the government pretends it will have.
Some few days ago the Winnipeg Free Press, an ardent, not to say sycophantic, admirer of the Liberal government, saw fit to publish an editorial in which they were viewing with grave misgiving the evidence of intellectual and administrative degeneration in the Liberal government. What they are going to say when they see a report of today's proceedings, I do not know, but I have heard a number of fatuous and puerile arguments from the government benches. With all due
5714	HOUSE OF
Navigable Waters Protection Act respect to the Minister of Justice, I do not think he really could have expected us to take seriously the arguments he presented a few minutes ago. He said this particular measure must go in to protect the Welland canal, among other things. Mr. Speaker, I am going to suggest this. I have a higher opinion of the intelligence of any possible subversive elements in Canada than to imagine that one of them who has in mind the blowing up of the Welland canal is going to all the trouble of trying to get a job on one of the steamships on the lakes. I suspect he will take the bus down and will go and blow it up that way, or if he does not want to do that, if he wants to do it more easily even, if he has some nautical aspirations, then he will buy a ticket on one of the passenger boats and drop it overboard as he goes through. What nonsense!
Does the Minister of Justice insist on screening all the employees of the Canadian Pacific who go through the Rogers pass tunnel? Does he insist on screening all the employees of the Canadian National Railways who go through the Fraser canyon, any one of whom could toss a bomb which could destroy and disrupt the trade of Canada just as effectively as the destruction of the Welland canal-and more effectively, because it would cut off the Canadian west coast of this country? What nonsense!
I have had some experience with screening propositions, Mr. Speaker. About eighteen months ago I had to sign an affidavit that I would not reveal any state secrets that might be involved in the waste of public money on naval vessels in a certain dockyard in Canada, and I had to sign an affidavit that I would not reveal anything that came to my knowledge in the course of my employment. The young man who was giving me this security test, which was a very solemn affair, told me that he would leave this with me and I could study it for a few minutes and he would be back later and then we could sign it with all due solemnity. When he came back I signed it. He said: "Have you read it?" I said: "Yes, I have read it". "You can understand it?" I said: "Yes, quite easily". I rather shattered the young man. I said: "You know, this thought occurs to me, that if I were a Russian spy I would sign this without the slightest hesitation, and if that is the only means you have of keeping subversive elements out of the yard, then this yard is in a bad way". Whereupon the young man said: "But you forget this; having signed this, you are now liable to 14 years in the penitentiary". I suggested that 14 years would not be a circumstance to what would happen to me if they caught me with


a bomb in my pocket. Mr. Speaker, this thing is so patently ridiculous and absurd that I hesitate even to attribute it to this government. I suspect, sir, that this is the result of pressure from somewhere else.
I suspect that this is the result of pressure from a place where a considerable measure of hysteria is prevailing at the present time, and that our government is doing this to reassure people somewhere else outside of Canada that if at some time these people discover someone on one of the lake boats, one who took part in a peace rally, a Mayday parade or, like the Minister of Justice, sat on the platform with a Soviet representative, the government of Canada will be prepared by regulation to cut off his head and take him off that ship.
I cannot see that there can be any other explanation for this ridiculous and fantastic piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, which in the first place gives to this government the power to create crimes, to say that this shall be a crime. If they are going to be able to do this by order in council, what are they going to constitute as a crime tomorrow? Perhaps they will constitute as a crime the saying of rude things that are said about the Liberal government of Canada, and there will be an awful lot of us in the penitentiary.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this government had better tell anybody who is bringing pressure on them that we have our own methods of safeguarding our way of life in Canada; that we are not impressed with the methods employed in other places; that reasonable precautions are taken and that we are still able to look after our own affairs in this country, because otherwise the only explanation that I have-it is not an explanation-the only explanation I have is that this government has gone slightly daft.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to almost all of this debate, and as yet I have not heard any explanation satisfactory to myself why parliament should be asked to make suspected wrongful thinking an offence on the great lakes. This is the first time that parliament has been asked to create a territorial offence. I think it is a dangerous course of action and one that indicates that what the government is trying to do is to bring legislation into effect, allegedly for the security of Canada, while afraid to face the issue and place that legislation before parliament.
I cannot agree that parliament should be asked to grant these comprehensive rights asked for under this bill whereby the governor in council will be authorized to have undesignated powers to do undefined things

for unanticipated offences not yet committed. That is what this legislation in effect does.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) said it is not a crime to entertain wrongful ideas so long as they are not overt acts. With that principle, Mr. Speaker, I agree.
However, if parliament grants this power as asked for by this back-door method it will in fact be making it a crime, within the designated limits of regulations about which we know nothing, to create an offence for alleged wrongful ideas.
What is the offence to be? Guilt by association? That is something which, I think, should be debated in this house-the concept too often regarded in neighbouring countries as a reason for destroying the reputation, if not the livelihood, of those who have committed no offence other than being suspected of wrongful thought. When I think of those who say there should be guilt by association I often wonder what the position of members of this House of Commons would be who sat in this house for three or four long years with a member who was a communist and who was afterwards convicted as a traitor to this country.
This type of legislation granting to the governor in council the power to do that which the council of the governor is afraid to bring before this house in direct legislation is a negation of parliament, and as far as I am concerned I am going to vote against it.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. The house in committee of the whole on Bill No. 471, an act to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Clause 1.
On clause 1-Recovery by Her Majesty from owner, etc., of costs of placing signals, removing wreck, etc.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the clause carry?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I rise at this stage for the purpose of making a suggestion to Your Honour which, if accepted by you and by the committee, I think might facilitate the orderly discussion of the bill. The bill consists of only two clauses but it seems to amend four different sections of the act. I wonder whether it might meet with your approval if we were to discuss each section of the act by itself rather than merely the two clauses of the bill as two separate proposals.


William Alfred Robinson: Is that agreeable to the committee?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2, section 33, agreed to.
On clause 2, section 34-Regulations.
Edmund Davie Fulton: This is the clause to which of course great objection was taken. The matter was discussed fairly fully on second reading, and now we can ask questions in detail. I suggest that one of the absurdities of going about the matter in this way is illustrated by the fact that the government, which considers it necessary to take these security measures, has to introduce an amendment to the Navigable Waters Protection Act which of course has nothing to do with security. But this clause only has reference to the great lakes. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Prince Albert, the effect
Vancouver or Victoria? How on earth is it proposed to deal with a situation of that sort in the absence of legislation of general effect? Has any of the ministers an explanation of that anomalous position?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Before an answer is made to my hon. friend's question, and since on second reading a number of speeches were directed at this section of the act and the regulations made thereunder, I should like to make some comments on the points that were raised. The hon. member for Greenwood quite naturally expressed a desire to know more about how these regulations had been dealt with. The same applies to the hon. member for Peace River who asked the question: What is involved here? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in his turn stated that there was no connection whatever between section 34 and the Navigable Waters Protection Act. I think we can take some exception to that because if he will cast his mind back a few years to just prior to 1950, the sabotage and destruction of property along the waters of the St. Lawrence certainly had something to do with the protection of that waterway. Without developing that, he went on to state that authority was being granted here by which the government may fine people for seeking employment. I know he did not really mean that because, as he and the committee are well aware, the regulations which were set up under the order in council were tabled in the house and do not provide for such a fine.
The regulations were first tabled by my parliamentary assistant back in 1951, and the amalgamated regulations and amendments thereto were tabled by the Prime Minister in 1952. The fines set out under the regulations have nothing whatsoever to do with the seeking of employment. They read as follows:
Every one who,
(a)	knowingly furnishes any false information or material in or in support of an application for a seaman's card or in a certificate required by subsection 2 of section 19, or
(b)	contravenes or fails to comply with any provision of these regulations,
is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars or to imprisonment not exceeding three months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.
Under that regulation we do not fine people for seeking employment. I want to make that very clear.
is to create a crime with reference to a particular territory alone. What about the seamen working on the Vancouver-Victoria boats? Is it to be suggested they could not do equal damage by blowing up a dock at


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would the minister read section 5 of the regulations?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Section 5?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l


Milton Fowler Gregg: It reads as follows:
No person shall accept employment or act as a seaman on board a Canadian ship in the great lakes, unless he is the holder of a provisional or regular seaman's card.
It is in connection with what was implied in the question of the hon. member for Greenwood that I want to give the committee a fairly full report as to what is involved under the existing regulations because the procedure, if the bill is put into effect, would be the same as under the former regulations. I will try to outline the situation as briefly as I can.
A seaman seeking employment on a vessel operating on the great lakes and upper St. Lawrence must make application to a local office of the national employment service for the issue of a seaman's card and must be in possession of either a provincial or a regular seaman's card to secure employment. You may ask the question at this point:	Why
were the Department of Labour and the national employment service chosen from among all the departments of government to act in this regard? I think there were two points involved. One of them, which is quite important, was the fact that my department and the unemployment insurance commission from day to day have a good deal to do with organized labour, the workers of Canada, and perhaps were as well equipped as anyone to discuss both with organized management and with organized labour all the factors involved in this proposed step that was taken under threat of emergency back in 1950. And so it was.
We discussed the matter at that time with the dominion marine association of Toronto representing the shipping companies or employers. We discussed it fully with the representatives of unions operating on the great lakes, namely, the Canadian merchants service guild-deck officers-the national association of marine engineers and the international seafarers union. I may say that after a full discussion of all the points involved none of the organizations, either employer or employee, expressed any disagreement with the step involved. There were differences of opinion of course as to how it could best be accomplished.
The second reason why the Minister of Labour was chosen to administer these regulations was the fact that he was responsible for the 230 national employment offices across Canada and it did appear that those offices and their officials would be best equipped to do the routine work for the convenience of applicants seeking work.
Navigable Waters Protection Act
This is the procedure that we have been following. We issue provisional cards to new applicants as they appear at the local national employment offices. Such cards are valid for sixty days. During that period of time the individual's application form, accompanied by photographs and fingerprints, is turned over to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for investigation. After the application has been screened, a regular seaman's card has been issued to him by the national employment office in exchange for the interim or provisional card issued at the time of this application, providing of course that it is not withheld for the reason the Minister of Labour has been satisfied that the presence of the applicant on board a Canadian ship in the great lakes might prejudice the security of Canada.
Where the screening of the application takes longer than 60 days, as was frequently the case at the beginning, it is not the practice to bar the seaman from employment but rather he has been permitted to continue sailing under his provisional card until the security screening has been completed. Where no derogatory information relating to national security is disclosed by the screening, a regular seaman's card is issued as a matter of course, and in my statement earlier I indicated to the house that that applied in a total of over 30,000. Where information bearing on national security is uncovered, that information concerning the application is dispatched to and considered by the Minister of Labour and his advisers.
Information received from the R.C.M.P. or any other source is assessed by the minister, and if he feels that the information received is sufficient to warrant the denial or withdrawal of a seaman's card, he so withdraws or denies it. In cases where the minister is satisfied the presence of the applicant on board a Canadian ship in the great lakes might prejudice the security of Canada, the applicant is so advised by a personal letter from the minister delivered personally by an official of the national employment service of the unemployment insurance commission. The seaman is then required to surrender any valid provisional or regular card. At the same time, if the question is raised by the seaman he is advised that he may, by an application in writing to the minister, request that his case be reviewed by the advisory committee. This advisory committee is composed of a retired judge of the exchequer court and two representatives of organized labour appointed after consultation with responsible national bodies of organized labour.
5718	HOUSE OF
Navigable Waters Protection Act
Upon receipt of a request for review, the minister asks this advisory committee of not less than three in number to investigate all the available information, and report its views with respect thereto to the minister. In practice, where the need to appoint an advisory committee has arisen, a committee of three persons has been appointed consisting of the retired judge, to whom I referred, as chairman, and two other members representing organized labour. Under the present regulations the advisory committee, subject to the direction of the minister, furnishes to the person who has requested the review such information made available to it as in the opinion of the committee it is possible to furnish to him without prejudice to the security of Canada and to the public interest. The committee also affords the individual an opportunity to make representations to it either personally or with the assistance of counsel.
The minister may, after considering the report of the advisory committee, grant or refuse to grant a seaman's card to the person requesting the review, and the minister's decision is final. The minister's decision is conveyed to the person requesting the review in writing. I can add that in each case I have followed sedulously the recommendations of the advisory committee.


John George Diefenbaker: In how many cases did the advisory committee recommend a change?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I am afraid I sent my notes to Hansard. It would not be complete to mention just one item out of a number, so perhaps I might repeat a portion of my remarks.
On April 26, 1954, there was a total of 30,540 applications received and processed under the regulations in the manner I have described. Some of the applications were imperfect, that is had not been made out properly, and some persons who had made applications could not be traced when the national employment service attempted to call them up. Of the remainder, 29,971 were sent to the R.C.M.P. for checking. Of these a total of 29,571 had been screened at that date, April 26, while 400 cases were still under investigation. Of the 29,571 applications screened, a total of 29,422 were cleared and 149 applications were questioned. Of the 149 cases questioned for the reason that information had been received having a possible bearing upon security, 122 were cleared as a result of the study of the circumstances by the minister's advisers, while 20 were refused regular seaman's cards and seven cases were in abeyance pending a decision as to whether or not cards should be issued.
As of April 26, 1954, seven of the persons denied cards had made a request for a review


of their cases. In one of these cases a further investigation resulted in the person being cleared without a review by the advisory committee. In three cases the committee confirmed the minister's decision to refuse to issue a card. Two requests for review lapsed, one for the reason the subject was deported and no further action was required under the security regulations, and the other for the reason the person concerned did not present himself for hearing. One request is still pending.


George Alexander Drew: I wish to direct my remarks once again to one aspect of this measure before us with which I did deal this morning and which the Minister of Justice in turn dealt with following what I had said. The Minister of Justice spoke of the fact that 24 dangerous men had been kept off ships as a result of this measure, then effective under the Emergency Powers Act. He asked if we did not believe it was a good thing that was done. Of course, we believe it is a good thing to keep dangerous men off ships. We believe, however, it should be done under a proper legal process. We believe it should be done under a law that is known to the person affected. We believe it should be done under a law which permits appeal to the courts and protects the right of the individual. We believe it should be done under a procedure that is consistent with our long established ideas of an open trial, except in those extremely unusual cases where some secrets of immense importance might possibly be under consideration. However, that does not affect the cases before us, so far as can be ascertained.
What we have been pointing out is that if there are dangerous men, those dangerous men should be dealt with under methods which do not infringe upon that democracy and freedom that we presume such dangerous men would wish to destroy.
One point which has not been dealt with effectively by the government is the point we make that this is brought up in a very improper way, under an amendment to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. As has been so aptly pointed out by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), this is creating a list of undefined offences in respect of which there may be punishment by a method, in itself not defined, and limited to a particular geographical area. Not only is it limited to a particular geographical area, but it is limited to a particular occupation.
May I ask just a few questions which, in themselves, it seems to me, seem to give the answer to any suggestion that this is the proper way to deal with offences of the kind

I have mentioned. If we are trying to deal with dangerous men who are making an effort to sabotage important transportation equipment, or any other equipment in our economy or society at this time, then why deal alone with steamships in a limited area? Why deal with a limited means of communication, with a limited activity in a limited area? Why not define the offence and make it applicable to anyone, under the jurisdiction of Canadian courts? If dangerous men are to be prevented from committing sabotage, or otherwise from undermining the security of Canada, why should that not apply below the Victoria bridge at Montreal as well as above it? Is the danger any less because it happens to be on the mighty St. Lawrence, right down to its mouth, below the Victoria bridge? I do not think so.
Is the danger any less on the Peace river, the Athabasca river or the Mackenzie river, where the uranium bodies are the most precious in the world today? Is it any less on the ships between Great Britain and Newfoundland? Is it any less on the extremely important ships carrying precious freight between the mainland and Vancouver island? Is it any less in those ships plying the waters of Hudson bay? Is it any less on the other lakes, not included in what we define as the great lakes? Precious cargoes of immense importance to Canada may be moving in those lakes.
And that applies only to the ships. What about the coastal ships under Canadian registry carrying vitally important traffic? What about the coastal ships carrying alumina up to Kitimat, in northern British Columbia? What about the ships carrying alumina up the St. Lawrence and up the Saguenay, to the Shipshaw plant in Quebec? They would not come under this clause in the bill, as related to the Victoria bridge in Montreal.
Let us look at other things; let us look at some of the other means of transportation. What about sabotage on the railways? What about sabotage on the air lines-because, after all, we know of cases of sabotage on the air lines. And they form an extremely important part of our communications system. What about sabotage in the great communications system that provides the nerve centres-the telegraph lines, the wire lines? That would be a good place for sabotage, if someone wanted to destroy their effectiveness.
What about the pipe lines that carry the oil; what about the refineries and the storage centres in the country? Are not dangerous men likely to do harm there, and in exactly the same circumstances, and with the same disloyalty as is dealt with here? What about 83276-362
9, 1954	5719
Navigable Waters Protection Act the gas pipe lines, and the distribution equipment which is likely to be so important 

and was so important in the last war? What about the private companies producing military equipment? Would not dangerous men, with sabotage as part of their plan, be just as dangerous there as on any ships? What about explosive plants carrying out production for the government? Would not sabotage there be more effective and more destructive and more far-reaching than anything that might be done in any single ship on the great lakes, in the ordinary course of events?
And, Mr. Chairman, what about foreign ships that ply our waters so regularly, and now carry so much traffic? May I remind this committee that if there is a hydrogen bomb or an atomic bomb exploded in the vicinity of Toronto or Hamilton, or any of our inland cities, it will not likely be carried by aircraft; it will likely be carried on a ship, where it can be hidden easily. That is well recognized. There is even greater danger of the transmission of a hydrogen bomb or atomic bomb by ship than by aircraft.
Of what use is a measure to limit the activities of dangerous men if it does not deal with foreign ships?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Would the Leader of the Opposition permit a question?


George Alexander Drew: No. I would prefer to continue until I have finished. I welcome the minister's interest, and I shall listen to him with interest; but when asking a question, because of his interest in the subject he has the habit of making a speech within a speech. I would prefer to finish my remarks.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It might be an embarrassing question.


George Alexander Drew: No, it would not be embarrassing at all. The minister never asks questions which are embarrassing, hut they can be disturbing.


John George Diefenbaker: Sometimes they are
embarrassing to himself.


George Alexander Drew: I would prefer to continue, because I wish to keep the context clear.
I am simply pointing out how ineffective as well as improper is a limited provision of this kind-one that is limited not only as to geography but also as to the particular type of transportation and particular occupation involved.
What about known communists in the uranium mines in Canada? That is a question that relates directly to this. What about known communists in the heavy water operations being carried on by a private company

Navigable Waters Protection Act on behalf of the government? And, as the minister well knows, a communist-led union is the recognized bargaining agency in that extremely important operation-as are also communist-led unions in the uranium mines, at this time.
If we find dangerous men in our ships, how about a law which will apply to everyone, and keep dangerous men out of all these other operations? And then let me come back to what, after all, is the very lifeblood of our productive system; I refer to electricity. Everyone knows that we are more dependent than any other country in the world, for our immense industrial production, upon electricity. A comparatively small team of highly trained saboteurs could paralyse the industrial production of Canada, if they were permitted to do so without interference. Why not have a law with general application which would make it possible to deal with such people?
And may I say something that I know the minister knows about-that there are known communists in some of our big hydroelectric plants today, and we have no law to deal with them at this time, although that is where they present a danger to Canada at this time.
For several years we have been asking for a simple, workable and clearly defined law that would define this kind of danger to which the minister refers. We have been asking for a law, not one to deal with any particular activity by name, but rather by a definition of that activity. We want an effort on behalf of any foreign power opposed to the safety and security of Canada to be an offence defined by law and punishable in our courts by Canadian jurors, and not punished behind Closed doors by undefined laws, by undefined agents, and under terms that not one of us will know about if we give this power to the government. Now, with these powers, unsatisfactory in form, unsatisfactory in extent, this is a good time for a return to democracy, and this is a good time for the government to comply with the request we have made over and over again to define the offence with reference to a foreign power which is seeking to undermine the security of Canada and place it in a form that will make it possible to bring these dangerous men, to use the term employed by the Minister of Justice, before the courts of Canada, where Canadian jurors, with that justice which is the pride of Canada, can decide whether they are innocent or guilty, and if they are guilty, where they will be sent to jail, where they should be, if they are trying to undermine the security of our country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to return for a minute or two to the comments the Minister of Labour made in reply to something I said when we were at the second reading stage. The minister felt that I could not really mean it when I interpreted this section as making it possible to impose a penalty on a person because he sought employment. The minister, in answering me, read eertain of the regulations under P.C. 2306 of May 2, 1952, and suggested that what was in the government's mind was the matter of providing penalties for any false declaration. As was brought out by the question put to him by the hon. member for Kamloops, there is included in the regulations No. 5, which reads:
No person shall accept employment or act as a seaman on board a Canadian ship in the great lakes, unless he is the holder of a provisional or regular seaman's card.
I look at the end of P.C. 2306 and I find that it says that everyone who contravenes any of these regulations-
... is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars or to imprisonment not exceeding three months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.
I admit it is far-fetched, but I suggest the possibility is right there that if a person manages to get employment as a seaman on board a Canadian ship on the great lakes, contrary to the provisions of this order in council, he could be charged and sentenced to a fine of $500 or to three months imprisonment, or to both such fine and such imprisonment. But, Mr. Chairman, apart from all that, may I point out that we are not voting on these regulations; we are voting on a section that is to be written into a law that will permit the government to make regulations. We are led to believe that the regulations that will be made will be the ones that are now in effect; we are led to believe that these regulations will be continued. That is not what we are voting on. We are voting on a clause which says, and I think the clause should be put on the record in its entirety:
The governor in council may make such regulations as he considers necessary or desirable in the interests of the safety or security of Canada respecting employment of seamen on board Canadian ships in the great lakes, and may prescribe the penalties to be imposed on summary conviction for violation of any regulation made under this section, but such penalties shall not exceed a fine of five hundred dollars or imprisonment for a term of three months or both fine and imprisonment.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that under that wording there is nothing involved but the matter of employment of seamen on board Canadian ships in the great lakes, and the right given to the government to impose

penalties for people who break regulations respecting such employment. I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that what we are voting on at this time is not order in council P.C. 2306; what we are voting on is the clause which I have just read, which gives extremely wide and undefined powers to the government in this field.
In this connection may I remind the government that this is not the first time the house has had to deal with a situation where emergency powers were expiring, and where the government wished to continue in effect some of the regulations that had been passed under those emergency powers. I have in mind what happened in 1946 or 1947 when the Continuation of Transitional Measures Act, or whatever that long name was, was expiring and the government was not yet ready to get along without all the regulations that had been passed under that act. I believe, if my memory serves me right, there were 57 of them which the government wished to continue in the "Heinz 57 varieties" bill.
But in that instance, even though there were some of those 57 regulations which members of the house objected to, at least what the government did was to bring in a bill continuing in effect those specific regulations, further providing in that legislation that none of those regulations could be altered. It was provided that the government by order in council could repeal any of them, but any regulations that were repealed could not be reinstated by the government afterwards. Whether we liked what was in those 57 regulations or not, at least we knew what we were talking about.
I submit, even though we might have disagreed with some of the sections of the regulations which the government might have asked us to vote on, it would have been better in this case to bring this matter before us, certainly not in the Navigable Waters Protection Act but in a bill properly named, and that it might have been brought before us in that form so that we would know exactly what we were voting on, rather than be asked to grant these wide powers without any restrictive definition as to what the government can do. We feel very strongly that the government's proposal in connection with this matter should be reconsidered even at this late date.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friends of the opposition who have just spoken, the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, seem to be under the impression that we have created now or are attempting to create in the present bill a sort 83276-3624
Navigable Waters Protection Act of supplementary Criminal Code with some new crimes and severe fines and penalties that have not heretofore existed.
As my hon. friend said, the Minister of Labour has stated that an order in council has been passed which we propose to continue. That order in council is not in any sense secret. It was tabled back in 1951. It has been a matter of public record ever since. It might be pointed out in reply to the point which the Leader of the Opposition made, that he wanted a law which was open to the public and offences under which would come before the courts and before a jury of the accused's peers, so that the person accused would have a fair trial and the like-in reply to this argument it might be relevant to point out that in any prosecutions under this order in council the prosecutor would have to invoke it. The order in council would have to be produced in court, would have to be proven, and then the crown would have to prove that an offence took place under it; and the only reason why there could not be a trial by a jury of the accused's peers is that the only offence provided for under the order in council is an offence punishable upon summary conviction by a fine or by a maximum imprisonment of three months. Therefore, the only reason why a man could not get a jury trial is not because the order in council was secret or a prosecution under it did not come before the court, but because the penalty is so small that it would be punishable on summary conviction and would not therefore get before a jury.
I would like to point out in addition to that that the order in council does not define any new series of crime. All that it provides is that it is an offence under the order in council to knowingly furnish false information, or to contravene or fail to comply with any provisions of the regulations. In other words, the only offences created by the order in council are those offences which it is necessary to create in order to carry out the administration of the order in council.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But we are not voting on that order in council.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I will deal with that point in a moment if my hon. friend will give me time. Under the order in council we are not creating any new series of serious offences such as sabotage nor are we dealing with the prosecution or penalty for sabotage. Such provisions, as the hon. members of the opposition have correctly pointed out, will remain in the Criminal Code. But the purpose of this bill and of any order in council passed under it is not to set up a supplementary Criminal Code. That is not

Navigable Waters Protection Act its purpose at all. The purpose of this legislation is to try to prevent the commission of crimes rather than to prosecute and imprison people for committing them.
I do not claim to be an authority on Canadian shipping or commerce; but with all due respect to the Leader of the Opposition I would certainly put my opinion on at least a parity with his on these subjects. The Leader of the Opposition asked a series of rhetorical questions as to whether the blowing up of the Welland canal or the Sault Ste. Marie canal would constitute a greater offence than the blowing up of a ship in Hudson bay. I should say the first offence would inflict incalculably greater damage to Canada than the latter. He then asked would it not be a greater offence to blow up a ship travelling between Vancouver and Victoria, and he listed a number of other coastwise examples dealing with the trade in bauxite coming into lake St. John through the lower St. Lawrence river.
But surely the whole point of this matter is that we have in Canada, whether the Leader of the Opposition is aware of it or not, a great lakes canal system through which an enormous amount of shipping passes. I believe there is no greater canal traffic in the world, and if I am not mistaken the next two greatest canals in the world do not together carry a greater volume of traffic. The answer therefore to all these rhetorical questions posed by the Leader of the Opposition is "Yes, it certainly would constitute very much greater damage to the economic life of Canada to have sabotage committed on the great lakes canal system covered by this bill than to have it occur elsewhere in Canada". That is the whole point. I am glad my hon. friend asked that long series of rhetorical questions in order that that point may be cleared up.


George Alexander Drew: How do you keep out the foreign ships?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: With regard to the foreign ships, as I said before I do not pretend to be an expert on this matter, but I think perhaps upon reflection my hon. friend will agree that one of the purposes for constructing the seaway we have been discussing at such great length is to make it possible to get a larger number of foreign cargo ships up into the great lakes; for most of the seafaring ships that come up the St. Lawrence river are of too deep a draught to travel up the seaway from tidewater to the lower end of lake Ontario. I will grant that there are some foreign ships which come up, but when my hon. friend is discussing a matter


of this kind he should attempt to discuss it in proportion, and I do not think there is a single instance my hon. friend gave in all his rhetorical questions where the damage from sabotage would be anywhere near comparable to that which could occur in the. canals of the great lakes system.
The hon. member for Nanaimo said that this idea is fatuous. I must say in all candour that I do not pretend to be any greater an authority upon this particular subject than the Leader of the Opposition or even the hon. member for Nanaimo. Perhaps the latter is a better authority on sabotage than I am; I do not know; but I would submit that those people whose opinions carry some weight in this matter do not agree with the views of the hon. member for Nanaimo, and I will leave it at that.
But I think if we reflect upon this matter at all we must realize that if we had an aerial invasion of Canada-and I ask this question of the Leader of the Opposition- would not the Welland canal be one of the main objectives of that aerial invasion? There is no part of the economic traffic of Canada the dislocation of which would cause greater harm to our economic life than the putting out of operation of the great lakes system. That is the point of this piece of legislation.
What we have done is not to create a supplementary Criminal Code but merely to provide an administrative method of trying to prevent what is in our power to prevent. In this connection I never said anything about dangerous men in the way in which the Leader of the Opposition has attributed that phrase to me. All I said was that those who, upon reasonable grounds, are suspected of being potential saboteurs, and there are not very many of them, should be covered under the provisions of this bill.
Surely when we have passed an order in council, have tabled it in the house, where it has been ever since, and when we now propose to renew it under the terms of this present legislation, then no matter how prejudiced the hon. members of the opposition may be, they should at least take our word for it as to what we intend to do under the legislation which is now before the house.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has pointed out that there is nothing defined here and that he does not know what we are going to do under this general power but pass an order in council. That is quite true. But what we are saying to my hon. friend now is that the proposal is to renew the present order in council for the purpose which it has served in the past few years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister permit a question on that point?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He has indicated what is the government's intention, hut is it not true that the wording of clause 34 would permit the government to go further and bring in another set of regulations on this subject?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, that is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It might be a convenience later on.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, suppose we did that, how would parliament stand in relation to that action? My hon. friend will recall that we have on our law books now the provision that orders in council must be put on the table within a certain period of time, unless we pass a secret order in council and in that event we would have to pass a second order in council making the first order in council secret, and we must table that second order in council. Therefore, my friend would know about the existence of the order in council which was secret; and if there is any substantial variation all that the opposition have to do to protect the interests of their constituents is to be sufficiently diligent to pick up the order in council, peruse it, and then if they think there is anything wrong with it there is nothing in the rules of parliament to prevent them raising that question at the next available opportunity.


John George Diefenbaker: And then what?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friends laugh about that, but they can raise this question and by so doing they can inform public opinion upon it. If they cannot get a resolution of condemnation through parliament that is not because of the fact that they have no opportunity of doing so. That is by reason of the fact that the people of Canada at the last general election did not have sufficient confidence in them to give them a majority in this house.
In view of these facts, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that there is no justification for all this facade of argument about parliament being by-passed and the members being given no opportunity of examining the government's position or of criticizing it or for the contention that we are creating in secret a number of a great new series of terrible offences that cannot be tried before the courts. In this regard what is my friend the Leader of the Opposition talking about? How does he suppose a conviction can be obtained in the courts unless the crown prosecutes in the court? That is the only place in which a conviction under this order in
9, 1954	5723
Navigable Waters Protection Act council could be obtained. May I also say, Mr. Chairman, that I am happy to report that up until the present time there has never been any necessity for having any prosecution at all under this order in council.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the latter part of my hon. friend's discussion on the course that should be followed by parliament, namely that of bringing the question before the house and asking for an adverse vote of the house, was too much even for him because he himself answered it by saying that there would be no hope of getting any change by following that course.
I just rise for the purpose of securing a little bit of information. I should like to find out from the Minister of Labour what are the indicia that determine the propensity of these individuals who are to be considered capable of committing crimes as yet uncommitted? Upon what basis does the minister operate in determining the intended commission of crime or the potential commission of wrongdoing or the propensity to do so? I should like him to deal with that point. If he would clarify that matter, I think most of our difficulties would be removed.
In the second place I should like to ask him this question. There are some 30-I believe that is the number he mentioned-who have been found to possess that propensity. They have not committed any offence. However, it is in order to anticipate and to guard against the possibility of the commission of an offence that they have been denied certificates. Their fingerprints are taken. They are found-first by the investigators and then confirmed by the minister-to be dangerous people. Would such people be allowed to leave the great lakes and to secure employment on ships operating between, say, Newfoundland and Halifax or between Victoria and Vancouver? Or is it considered that the propensity to commit wrong is purely circumscribed territorially? I should like to have the Minister of Labour explain that situation because if he were able to do so, I think he would clarify the whole situation.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the second question, I should like to refer to what is evident here, namely, that on any point affecting the applicants' legal status afterwards or spheres of possible sabotage I am certainly not in a position to answer because on behalf of the government I have just been acting under these particular regulations.
As to the first question asked, namely, what were the factors which caused the Minister of Labour to refuse to issue a permanent seaman's card-I think that was the question- the factors which entered into that decision

Navigable Waters Protection Act have been somewhat the same, or in the same category, as would be the factors involved if my hon. friend were choosing a law partner. It would be a matter of consideration of that applicant's background, his behaviour under other conditions and all that goes with it. However, in my case I would probably have available more skilled sources of information than usually come to one, namely, the resources of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and of the Department of Justice. So therefore in answer to his question as to the factors affecting the matter of the decision with respect to either refusing or agreeing to provide a card, these are to be found in the record of the applicant's background, as ascertained from the R.C.M.P. and from any other reliable source.
As to the other part of his question, in administering these regulations I have no jurisdiction over the matter after the applicant's refusal of a card for employment on the great lakes has been delivered to him.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, this is the most amazing discussion that I can remember in connection with a bill in the House of Commons. When the Minister of Labour spoke on second reading of the bill, he dealt with the matter of screening, the number of applications received and the number which were rejected. Then when the Minister of Justice spoke on second reading of the bill, he too made quite a point of the fact that the intention of the government was to prevent sabotage by screening. But in the bill before us there is not a word about screening. What we are asked to do in this bill before us is to approve penalties for infractions or crimes but we do not know what those crimes are going to be. The minister shakes his head. I am afraid there is a whole lot more in the section than there is in his head, Mr. Chairman. Let me read it to him. The section reads as follows:
The governor Is council may make such regulations as he considers necessary or desirable in the interests ol the safety or security of Canada respecting the employment of seamen on board Canadian ships in the great lakes, and may prescribe the penalties to be imposed on summary conviction for violation of any regulation made under this section,-
The section says "any regulation made under this section"; the thing is wide open. It continues:
-but such penalties shall not exceed a fine of five hundred dollars or imprisonment for a term of three months or both fine and imprisonment.
That is what the House of Commons is asked to pass. That is what the members of this committee are voting on. Regardless of
rMr. Gregg.]

what sophistry the Minister of Justice may use in explaining the bill, he cannot explain away that fact.
He says that their purpose is to prevent crime or to prevent sabotage. But does my hon. friend say that he prevents sabotage by the mere screening of the employee who may operate on board these ships? Is it not quite possible and quite feasible for a bomb to be put on a ship going through one of the locks in the Welland canal or in any other canal, and for it to be put there by someone other than an employee who has gone through government screening? I am quite in favour of making sure, as far as we possibly can do so, that the persons who operate these ships are persons on whose loyalty we can depend. But that is not what is provided in this bill. What is provided in this bill is the imposition of penalties for violations _ of regulations which we do not know anything about.
If the regulations are contained in order in council P.C. 2306 of May 2, 1952, why was that order in council not made a part of the explanatory notes? In any case, we should have been given a copy of it when considering this measure. Then we would know something about it. I am afraid that other regulations may be made. At this time we know what the government really wants to do by this bill, and if they want to do what they say they want to do they had better add another section because what they want to do is certainly not contained in the bill at the present time.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am sending over a copy of the order in council to my hon. friend.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Minister of Justice has repeated again the statement he made before, and of course his repetition does not make it any more accurate the second time than the first. He has said that order in council P.C. 2306 does not create any new offences which would, as it were, be in the nature of enacting a new Criminal Code. I cannot understand why the minister fails to comprehend that that is exactly what it does.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: On a question of privilege, my hon. friend did not understand me correctly. I said that it created no new offences other than some few summary conviction offences for the purpose of administering the order in council.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think I shall be able to establish that it does create a new offence, that it inflicts upon the person found guilty by the Minister of Labour of having committed that offence a most severe penalty,

and that the offence is not provided for anywhere else under our law. I think I am stating it correctly when I say that the purpose has been described by both ministers as the refusal or withdrawal of a seaman's card on the grounds of anticipated sabotage. Is that a fair summary of what the ministers have said?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, that is not an offence.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I see the Minister of Labour is nodding his head signifying assent. Very well. The withholding or withdrawing of a seaman's card on the grounds of anticipated sabotage is done because it is suspected that the man, on account of his past associations or something they think about him, is likely to commit sabotage. That is why the card is withheld or withdrawn, and the withdrawing or withholding has the effect of depriving that man of the right to work at his calling, does it not?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think it deprives him of the right to work at his calling in that particular area. I think it is not an offence any more than it would be an offence of my hon. friend from Kamloops if a club refused his application for admission.


George Alexander Drew: He could go to another club.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In either case the man has been a seaman on the great lakes, and he is not working for the government. It is not the steamship company which gives or withholds the card. Do not let the minister try to becloud the issue by pretending that it is the steamship company which refuses him employment. It is the government which refuses him employment, and he suffers that penalty because the Minister of Labour thinks that the man may commit sabotage. That is imposing a penalty. It cannot be described in any other words. Therefore it is creating a new offence and the offence is that of being a man about whom it is anticipated he may commit sabotage.
That offence is not covered under any other law of this country and certainly should not be covered, not in those terms at any rate. The point we have made throughout is that if the government is going to say that it is justified in imposing penalties on these men because of their actions, associations or whatever it may be then they should have the courage to come and ask parliament to enact such a law. I doubt whether parliament would do so in these terms.
It is for that reason that we object to giving the governor in council the right to do behind closed doors what we strongly suspect parliament would not do if it were asked to enact it in legislation. Therefore
9, 1954
Navigable Waters Protection Act the government, under the regulations they have already made, have created a new offence, the offence of being suspected to be likely to commit sabotage, and they have imposed the penalty of loss of job by withholding the card. If the Minister of Labour., who administers it, can put any other construction on it, I would be glad to hear him attempt to do so.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall we proceed to the consideration of clause 2, section 35?


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the Minister of Labour one or two questions about this measure? I was unable to be here this morning because of the meeting of the veterans affairs committee but I have read a transcript of the remarks that were made. I understood the Minister of Labour to say that these regulations were first enacted as a result of the fighting in Korea. Is that correct, that the reason the government saw fit to bring in these regulations was on account of the fighting in Korea?


Milton Fowler Gregg: In general terms that is the case. I think I stated that as we would all remember, in 1950 we were in a period of emergency or threatened emergency. It was because of that emergency that discussions were entered into between the governments of Canada and the United States with regard to shipping on the great lakes. It was as a result of those discussions that the Canadian government decided to take the step of co-operating with the United States in this regard.


Howard Charles Green: The same reason was given to us for retaining the Emergency Powers Act, namely, the fighting in Korea. Yet this year the government, after a great deal of pressure had been brought to bear on it in the house and throughout the country, saw fit to allow the Emergency Powers Act to lapse. That was the act under which these regulations were passed. If the emergency has lessened to the extent that the Emergency Powers Act can safely be allowed to expire, hew does the Minister of Labour justify retaining these regulations which were passed under the Emergency Powers Act?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, the government did hope that it might be able to take the step suggested by my hon. friend, namely, that these regulations could follow the course of the Emergency Powers Act and disappear. But during the last several months the matter has been under careful consideration, and in view of all the factors, which affect other departments as well as my own, it was decided to take the step which is outlined here.

Navigable Waters Protection Act


Howard Charles Green: Then we have now reached the position where these emergency powers are being put into effect for less reason than they were put into effect originally. The original reason was because of Korea. The Korean situation is obviously no longer such a threat as to require emergency measures. Yet now, as the Minister of Labour says, the country is to be subjected to these emergency measures. Am I correct in saying that that obviously can only be because the government is now seeking to use these emergency measures for less reason than it used them before?


Milton Fowler Gregg: To the degree that the general emergency is less now than it was in 1950, what my hon. friend says is true. I do not think that any of us will say that the general emergency today is as tense as it was in the summer and fall of 1950.


Mr. Rowe:: Is it worse than it was last year?


Milton Fowler Gregg: But nevertheless it is the feeling of the government that it is of sufficient importance to ask parliament to continue this procedure which has been in effect since then.


Howard Charles Green: Is the real story not this, that the United States has insisted on Canada continuing these regulations, and that is why Canadian seamen are to be made subject to this measure for three years? Could I have an answer to that question?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The Minister of Labour cannot answer that question. This has been developed as a matter of government policy. All the factors affecting the situation have been taken into consideration. Some of them have to do of course with external affairs, others with justice and labour, but the Minister of Labour is not in a position to answer that question.


Howard Charles Green: I understand the Minister of Justice has given the purpose as the protection of the canals and locks. Could we be told what protection the government supplies on these locks at the present time?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: You mean other than by this present method? You mean by way of guards and that sort of thing?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am afraid I would not have that information available in the Department of Justice. I could get it, no doubt.


Howard Charles Green: The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transport is here and these


canals come under the Department of Transport. He should be able to tell us what protective measures are taken to guard these locks.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I have no doubt we could get the information.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: We have no special constable force guarding these locks in the canals. We have our normal force of employees looking after the operations of these locks, who are constantly on duty night and day. They are in a position to report to the nearest R.C.M.P. force or to any other law enforcement agency in the district if they fear there is any threat to these canals or locks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But they may be 25 miles away.


Howard Charles Green: The canal service is being carried on in the ordinary peacetime way, that is what I am to take from the answer by the parliamentary assistant?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: Then we are in this position, that no precautions whatever, other than what perhaps were taken in 1938, are being taken to guard these locks or the canals from sabotage. Yet the government is asking this emergency power to prevent Canadians serving on Canadian ships in the great lakes in order that the canals can be protected. Now, does that not show on the face of it the foolishness of asking for a drastic power of this kind to prevent seamen from earning their living? The Minister of Labour has admitted that out of about 30,000 who have been screened only 20 have been rejected. Subsequently one of those 20 was found to be all right, and three have not had their appeals heard yet. We get down to the fact that at the most 19 men out of 30,000 have been stopped from working on ships in the great lakes by the use of this police state power. At the same time not one step has been taken towards protecting the canals and locks which are stated to be the reason for requesting this drastic power. It simply does not add up. I should like the parliamentary assistant to tell me how many foreign vessels came into the great lakes last year?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: I am sorry, but I have not that information on hand presently. I could supply it to the hon. member later.


Howard Charles Green: I have a Department of Transport report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1953; that is over a year ago. At page 33 it shows that foreign vessels made 145 inbound trips into the great lakes, and that was up from about 100 trips the year before.

I presume it will have been much higher last year. Then when the St. Lawrence seaway is opened up there will be hundreds more foreign ships coming into the great lakes. Am I correct in my understanding that these restrictions do not apply to foreign ships? In other words, a Russian ship could come up into the great lakes loaded with atom bombs, and it would not be affected in any way by these regulations.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: If the hon. member would look at the definition of "Canadian ship" in section 33 he would see that it reads as follows:
"Canadian ship" means a ship registered in Canada, and includes a ship owned, or operated under charter or lease, by a person who resides in Canada.
A foreign ship that is either under charter or a lease by a Canadian will be covered by these regulations.


Howard Charles Green: Oh yes, but there are not very many foreign ships that are leased by Canadians. Most of these ships to which reference is made in the Department of Transport report are foreign registered vessels. Most of these foreign ships that come into the great lakes are owned abroad. Is it a fact that they are not covered by these regulations?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Some of them could be leased or under charter to Canadians, and then they would be affected by this bill.


Howard Charles Green: Is it a fact that these regulations will not apply to these foreign vessels unless they happen to be owned by Canadians or leased by Canadians?


Walter Edward Harris: If I may say a few words here, I think my hon. friend is making a distinction between cargo and personnel. Do I understand him to recommend that we establish a post at the outermost part of the St. Lawrence where every ship of foreign registration will be searched for the purpose of determining whether or not they have anything in the nature of materials for sabotage?


Howard Charles Green: Oh, no-


Walter Edward Harris: The hon. member was asking the ministry if there was any way of stopping that. My hon. friend knows quite well that there is not, but we are discussing personnel here and under my immigration regulations we deal with personnel on foreign ships.


Howard Charles Green: There is quite a difference between asking a question and advocating something. I was not advocating setting up such a control, I am merely trying to find out whether these regulations will apply to foreign vessels. I understand they do not.
9. 1954
Navigable Waters Protection Act


J. G. Léopold Langlois: If the ship is under charter or lease to a Canadian, they do apply.


Howard Charles Green: Is the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration going to answer?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, I will answer about personnel. I hope my hon. friend will not ask these rhetorical questions about materials for sabotage when, in fact, we are talking about personnel. Under the immigration regulations I deal with personnel on board foreign ships, and you may rest assured I will continue to do so.


Howard Charles Green: Does the minister screen the seamen on foreign ships before those ships can go into the great lakes?


Walter Edward Harris: I do not think my hon. friend would want me to outline the steps we take. I will be glad to disclose them to him if he desires, but I would just as soon we did not disclose the whole method here.


Howard Charles Green: Has the minister prevented any foreign vessels from going into the great lakes?


Walter Edward Harris: We do not prevent vessels going in, we prevent personnel; that is the point I am trying to make.


Colin Cameron: I wonder whether the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transport could tell us if all the passengers going through the Welland canal are screened?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: In answer to this question I would refer the hon. member to the definition of "seaman". For the purpose of these regulations a seaman means a person employed in any capacity on board a ship, and includes the master of a ship. Any person falling within that definition could be screened.


Colin Cameron: But anyone else on the ship would not be screened. You have no means of controlling the movement of anyone else on the ship, if it is a passenger vessel?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Not under this bill.


Colin Cameron: Have you under any other law or any other regulation?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: I do not think so.


Colin Cameron: In other words, as I said earlier, this is just a piece of nonsense.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: My last answer was qualified by what was said by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then it is qualified nonsense.

Navigable Waters Protection Act


Colin Cameron: I gather that the only regulations referred to in section 34 are regulations governing the movement of these ships. That is to say, the only regulations contemplated in the government's mind are regulations governing the employment on those ships travelling on the great lakes; is that correct?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It would be better to say that they are regulations dealing with seamen who are employed on the ships. To my hon. friend that might appear to be a distinction without a difference; but I assure him there is a difference. It relates to seamen who are seeking employment on ships. Only a very small percentage of those seamen have had employment withheld from them in the past; less than two dozen out of 30,000.


Colin Cameron: As the minister says, it is a distinction without a difference. I gather that the only way an individual can contravene the regulations referred to in section 34 is by obtaining employment without having been screened under the terms of that order in council; is that correct?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not think that is correct. I think that is one way, and perhaps the most common way, but it is not the only way.


Colin Cameron: Would the minister agree that the only other way an individual can contravene would be by employing a person who had not been screened?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, there are others. If my hon. friend would go through the order in council he would find that there are other acts required, both of the employer and the employee. I realize he may not have a copy of the order in council before him. I would point out that it is the failure to perform the acts the order in council requires which constitutes the offence. For example, there is the offence of giving false information in relation to employment.


Colin Cameron: That, again, relates to the question of getting a job as a seaman.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: What my hon. friend seems to be driving at is that the most likely and the most common offence under the act would be that of seeking to obtain employment without having obtained a card under the act.


Colin Cameron: With all due gratitude to the minister for describing the point I am making, may I say my point is this: I can see no reason why there cannot be stated clearly in the bill exactly what are the regulations covering employment on ships on the great lakes. Why should it not be possible to spell out clearly and plainly that which would be in contravention of this particular
[Mr. Knowles.!

legislation, if a person seeking employment as a seaman on the great lakes fails to comply with the necessary regulations? They could be set out clearly as the regulations with which he must comply. As the Minister of Labour has pointed out, he must make application. On the other hand it places a similar responsibility upon employers, a responsibility not to hire anyone who cannot produce proof that he has complied with these regulations. It seems to me if that were spelled out clearly there would be no objection from this side of the house at all. But as was pointed out earlier by my hon. friend from Vancouver-Kingsway, the minister could take from now till doomsday, but he could not get around the fact that the section, as it is designated before us, leaves it wide open for the government to bring in any sort of regulation it likes governing this particular group of citizens.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I would be the first to admit that there is a good deal in what my hon. friend says; but I thought I had covered that point in my previous statement, to the effect that we have stated that the order in council, which was passed under the previous legislative authority, has been tabled in the house, and is quite accessible to my hon. friend himself, if he wishes to look at it.
It is the government's intention to renew that existing order in council under the legislative authority now being sought. Perhaps we should have had a greater number of copies of the order in council so that we might have distributed them. But let there be no misunderstanding about it, what we have in mind is simply to carry on with the existing order in council which, as my hon. friend can see from the figures supplied, seems to have worked satisfactorily; so much so, in fact, that it has not been necessary to lay a single charge under the order in council during the whole period of its administration. No one has been convicted under it; there have been no charges under it.


Colin Cameron: I do not know
whether that is a recommendation for it, or not.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well it certainly shows that there have been no difficulties in its administration. It is a purely administrative order in council designed for the purpose of making sure that those seamen who travel on the great lakes ships shall be properly screened for the protection of our waterways which are so vital to our commerce.


John George Diefenbaker: I asked the Minister of Labour a while ago for the basis upon which he acted. He is in the position of an appeal court judge, in respect of any order made

by a committee set up by himself. He determines whether or not the application for review shall be heard. May I ask him this one simple question: Of the 29 persons who were denied these cards, how many were communists?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I am quite unable to say, as my hon. friend knows. It was not the intention of the regulations that the Minister of Labour or anyone else should be able to say how many were communists. Then, I was not quite clear as to that part of my hon. friend's question in which he referred to an appeal court judge. If he would repeat it I would be happy to answer it. My hon. friend referred to a review, but I was not quite clear about his question.


John George Diefenbaker: Let me put it this way: If a seaman is found to be a member of a communist organization, does that deny him the right to secure the necessary card under this legislation?


Milton Fowler Gregg: What was the provision the hon. member mentioned?


Edmund Davie Fulton: If a seaman is found to be a member of a communist organization.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Well, the factors upon which the minister bases his decision are factors affecting the applicant, made to him mainly by the R.C.M.P. Out of that information-


John George Diefenbaker: What are those factors?


Milton Fowler Gregg: My hon. friend knows that I cannot publish that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Why not?


John George Diefenbaker: That is exactly the point. We are trying to prevent sabotage. Surely we do not have to sabotage parliament in order to do it; and that is what order-incouncil government does. I asked the minister this question:	Is it not a fact that
anyone who has a card showing his membership in a communist organization automatically is denied a card, under this legislation?


Mr. Howe (Pori Arthur):: Should he be?


John George Diefenbaker: You are the government; I am asking if that is so.	.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The terms of reference of the Minister of Labour in this regard were clearly set out under the Emergency Powers Act, which states:
Where, after the issue of a seaman's card to a person, the minister is satisfied that the presence of that person on board a Canadian ship in the great lakes might prejudice the security of Canada,-
In case the judgment of the Minister of Labour on that matter, after getting all the information that was available to him, might
83276-363J
9, 1954
Navigable Waters Protection Act be improved by review, the regulations provide for the setting up of an advisory body, not to decide what to do but to advise the Minister of Labour whether his decision appeared to be right or wrong in view of all the facts laid before him.


John George Diefenbaker: It is so difficult to get a simple answer to this. I want to ask the minister a simple question to which he can answer yes or no. Is a communist, or a member of a communist organization, who is on board a Canadian ship on the great lakes, deemed to be such a person as would prejudice the security of Canada and therefore not be entitled to a card? There should be no difficulty about that?


Milton Fowler Gregg: As my hon. friend knows, his question comes within the realm of the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice has to do with supervision of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the amount of secrecy under which they should operate. In attempting to administer these regulations I cannot try to set out before this committee all the detailed factors that may come into the reaching of the reluctant decisions that the Minister of Labour had to reach in sending out refusal letters to these very few applicants for jobs on the great lakes. I can assure my hon. friend that those letters of refusal were not sent out without ample proof that they should be sent out.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I should like to return to the point raised by the Minister of Justice when replying a short time ago to the hon. member for Nanaimo. It seemed to me that we were getting close to the point where the main objection, at least in this corner of the house, to the proposal which the government is putting forward here was being discussed. If I might be permitted to put it this way, it appears to me that the government is allowing its expectation of immortality to obscure its judgment. I am quite prepared to accept at its face value the statement of the Minister of Justice and of the Minister of Labour that the intent of the government is to implement regulations in line with the previous order in council which they have told us about in some detail. I think that even they would be the first to admit that they are not necessarily the people who are going to be always the minister of justice and the minister of labour in this country.
Some of us feel that in this kind of legislation lies the thin edge of the wedge which we do not want to see expand. We, as was indicated by one of the other speakers, see in this matter some manifestations of the prejudice which we see in other countries, which we do not like. We do not want to

Navigable Waters Protection Act see that attitude and that prejudice brought into Canada. I would even go so far as to say that listening to the Leader of the Opposition not so long ago I detected in some of the remarks he made about his suggestion of extending this sort of thing by one means or another an indication that there is a segment of opinion in this country in whose hands this legislation could prove very dangerous. That is the reason that some of us are concerned when legislation of this kind, which gives sweeping powers to the governor in council over the lives and the opportunities for employment of working people, is brought in.
It can be admitted there has been very little criticism in this debate of the actual manner in which the terms of the previous order in council have been carried out in so far as its administration is concerned. But nevertheless I still feel that on the one hand an important case can be made for the point that the amount of protection to be achieved does not warrant the infringement upon some of our basic concepts of freedom that it involves.
Suppose one were to admit that that is not altogether true in the present circumstances. I still feel that we have been right in saying that if we are going to have this sort of thing, it can be set forth in the more ordinary manner by legislation than as is being done at the present time.
I raised the question as to whether some minor amendments to some of the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act, which is on our statute books at the present time, could not be used quite effectively to serve the purpose which the government apparently has in mind here. None of the government speakers has made any mention of that point. I read some of the sections which certainly are related to this general subject, which indicated that under that act there was provision for checking on the character and so forth of seamen. It seems to me that if it is necessary to have this sort of protection it could have been incorporated in more ordinary forms of legislation than is proposed here by the government.


Mr. Leboe:: There has been a lot of debate on this problem, and I was wondering whether it was not possible for the government to meet the objections of the opposition and still accomplish what the government has in mind. It could be done. I should like to hear from the minister whether it is possible or not.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not know how much farther we can go to meet them than by saying, as I have said two or three times


already, that we have no plans for the use of this legislation other than to maintain the present order in council which is on record, and has been on record since 1951 for any hon. member to see. It spells out all of these things which need doing, and which is just as definite as any statute could be.
It is true, as some of the hon. members of the opposition have said, that we would have power to amend that order in council in some respect if amendments were necessary; but I think I am right in saying-my colleague, the Minister of Labour, will correct me if I am wrong-that the order in council has been in its present state since it was first passed. Is that not right?


Milton Fowler Gregg: There was a consolidation; there was a minor amendment after it was first passed.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My colleague tells me that after the original order in council was passed there was a minor amendment, and it has remained in its present form since. It has proved to be very satisfactory and effective. We are saying to parliament that this is what we are going to enact in this legislation when it is granted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And nothing more?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, and nothing more, because it has proved to be adequate. I suppose if our powers of prophecy are not as great as we think they are and we do need to have something more, we would be under obligation to acquaint parliament of this fact, but I must say at the present time we see no reason to do other than to continue in effect the order in council which has been serving us during the past number of years, and of course, under this present legislation, we will have power to do that only for a limited period.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask one other question? What is the status of this order in council at the present moment?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It has lapsed. We require this legislation to restore it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then that order in council dated May 31 does not exist at the present time?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is correct.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 


Mr. Palleil:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask one further question of the Minister of Labour with reference to the seamen's cards issued under the previous order in council. Are there any communists holding these cards?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, I could not say but I am quite sure the answer is no. In accordance with the provision laid down in the regulations there is no attempt on the part of the Minister of Labour to identify the applicant as a communist or noncommunist.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the fact that the order in council is now dead what is the status of the seamen's cards that were issued when the order in council was in effect?


Milton Fowler Gregg: These cards are in the hands of the seamen and the employers association and the labour organizations have been made aware of the fact the Emergency Powers Act would lapse before new regulations would be authorized, but I am convinced the program is going forward in good faith during this period of hiatus as though the order in council had been in effect.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will these cards have to be reissued?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No, the cards which are in the hands of the seamen will all be honoured when this comes into effect.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall we proceed with consideration of section 35?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I am not quite sure whether the minister has done so but I would be glad if he would tell us the names of those on his advisory committee.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, but perhaps I had better read the section in the order in council which covers it. It reads on page 3 as follows:
12.	A person whose application for a seaman's card has been refused or who has been required to deliver his seaman's card pursuant to section eleven may by application in writing to the minister request that the refusal or requirement be reviewed by an advisory committee.
13.	(1) The minister shall appoint committees of not less than three members, herein referred to as "advisory committee", to advise him with respect to reviews requested under section twelve.
(2)	An advisory committee shall inquire into and investigate whether the presence of the person who has requested the review on board a Canadian ship in the great lakes might prejudice the security of Canada, and shall report its views with respect thereto to the minister.
(3)	An advisory committee shall, subject to the direction of the minister, furnish to the person who has requested the review such information made available to it as in the opinion of the committee it is possible to furnish to him without prejudice to the security of Canada and the public interest, and shall afford to that person an opportunity to make representations to it either personally or with the assistance of counsel or other representative.
(4)	The chairman, or any member of an advisory committee, may administer oaths for the purposes of this section, and an advisory committee may receive and accept such evidence on oath or by affidavit or otherwise as in its discretion it considers fit and proper.
Navigable Waters Protection Act
I can read the remaining subsections, but that will give my hon. friend some idea of the procedure.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is there any further
discussion on section 34?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I thought it was agreed we would consider them one by one and perhaps call section 34 first.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Yes, is there any further discussion on section 34?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, could you put the question on section 34?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I am of the opinion that I am not able to put the question on section 34 because the clause in the bill is clause 2 which contains three new sections which it is proposed to add to the act. I believe I must eventually put the question to this committee on clause 2 of the bill as a whole.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, Mr. Chairman, I do not think it matters except that we would have preferred to be able to vote against section 34 since section 34 contains the meat of the whole matter, and our attitude to this bill will be determined when that question is put.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is there any discussion on section 35?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, for reasons I do not think it necessary to rehearse it is obvious it would be very much more preferable in our view if this new provision was continued in force for only one year. In fact, it would be preferable from our point of view if it did not come into effect at all. But I am anticipating that, as usual, we will win the debate and lose the vote, and I take it the clause will probably carry and come into effect.
But may I point out that the previous order in council was effective only as long as the Emergency Powers Act was effective and that act was in effect only from year to year and required positive action by parliament to renew it. But now, under section 35 which reads:
This part shall continue in force for a period of three years from the day on which it came into force, and no longer-
-this regulation would be given the force of law for three years and parliament would not be entitled to review the situation during that time. I therefore move:
That the proposed new section 35 be amended by deleting the words "three years" where they occur in lines 31 and 32 and substituted therefor the words "one year".
I hope the government will accept that amendment because they had only one year
5732	HOUSE OF
Trade Agreement with Spain assured from time to time under the regulations as they existed. We have stated that we object to this principle being written into our law, and since the government is prepared to review the matter at the end of three years, and since we all hope that the circumstances which they feel justify the enactment in the first place may not continue forever, I would hope they would accept the amendment limiting its operation to one year.
Amendment (Mr. Fulton) negatived: Yeas, 37; nays, 51.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I declare the amendment lost. Shall clause 2 carry?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, would you put the motion on clause 2 because this is the clause which incorporates section 34?
Clause 2 agreed to on division.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported on division.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Tomorrow.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Next sitting of this house.



TABLING OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND SPAIN

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Roch Pinard (Parliamentary Assistant to	the	Secretary	of	State	for	ExternalAffairs): Mr. Speaker, by leave of the house I would ask to revert to motions for a moment. I should like to table on behalf of	the	Secretary	of	State	for	External
Affairs-
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Has the hon. gentleman leave to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Pinard:: -three copies in French and in English of the trade agreement signed at Madrid on May 26, 1954, between Canada and Spain.


Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys) moved: that the house go into committee of supply.


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



MARKETING OF SURPLUS

George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I now propose to avail myself of this motion in order to raise


a question which came before the house yesterday and which it is now possible to discuss in a manner that was not considered appropriate at that time under the rules. I refer to the situation with which we are confronted in connection with the marketing of the large surplus of wheat which we now have on hand. I do so with particular reference to the announcement made the night before last that the price of Canadian No. 1 hard wheat had been reduced 10J cents. That is the largest reduction that has been made in many years in the price of Canadian wheat.
I do not propose to go into detail about the number of bushels on hand or the fact that we have the largest surplus ever stored on the farms of western Canada because those facts have all been discussed on various occasions. Every hon. member who has kept in touch with this situation in any way is fully aware of the fact that for various reasons our elevators are full, our general storage capacity is occupied and that grain is stored in unprecedented quantities on the farms in western Canada.
The announcement made the day before yesterday of this large reduction in the price of wheat, varying according to the various grades, is one that is of great importance, not only to the wheat farmers of western Canada and the wheat farmers in other parts of Canada but also to every Canadian. That announcement lopped off many millions of dollars in immediate value of accumulated wheat, a fact which means a direct loss to the farmers themselves. That loss, in turn, is something which has its impact upon the retailers, the wholesalers, the railways, the producers in eastern Canada and, generally, upon our whole economy.
Without going into many of the arguments that might be presented as to the reasons for the situation with which we are now confronted, may I say I think it must be realized that the most urgent thing required at this time is a clear declaration of policy by the government so that the farmers, those handling grain, the railways, the shippers generally and the ship owners who will be called upon to carry the grain to distant points may know what to expect during the coming weeks and months.
Although the situation had been generally known, it came as a surprise to many Canadians to learn a few months ago that at the beginning of this year none of the 1953 wheat crop had been sold and that there had been a carry-over of a large quantity of the 1952 crop. Today we are within less than two months of the opening of a new crop year.

Given a reasonably good crop this year we shall be confronted with a situation which will tax the confidence and the faith in the future of many people who have been engaged in this great part of our national activity, whether it be on the farm or in the various organizations which serve to carry the grain from the farm to the ultimate consumer.
The present situation is one over which the government has had complete supervision. In so far as it can be affected in any measure by government action, the present situation is the result of the decisions and the action of this government. Let there be no pretence that the wheat board acts without consultation with the government in reaching its decisions. At any rate, when things were going well we were told that it was the beneficent conduct of this government that had produced the good results; we were told that too often for the matter to be left in a position where any Canadian has any right to do anything else than to place fully upon this government the responsibility for meeting the situation which now exists.
One of the great problems confronting the farmers of western Canada and all farmers whose prices are affected by what happens to the price of western grain., as well as other Canadians who in one way or another are affected by this situation, is that we find ourselves between two diametrically opposed policies. The responsibility for resolving that situation is that of the government. Over and over again we have been told by this government that it does not believe there should be any intervention in trade and commerce. They have acted upon that principle in certain fields of activity. In others they do not uphold that principle. Which principle does guide the government in forming its policies? Surely it is time that the farmer, the shipper, the railways, the ship owners and all our people generally knew. Everyone in the house has supported the principle inherent in the farm prices support act. Everyone in the house recognizes the fact that, no matter what proportion of our production it may be in dollar value, agriculture is still the basic production in this country.
It must be a matter of concern to every Canadian to see our farmers in the uncertain and distressed position in which they find themselves at this time. The position is precarious. The position is one which must be faced in some way. It is a situation which can only be faced by the government. With that power of numbers which has been proclaimed on so many occasions, and once again by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson)
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus this afternoon, it is not within the power of any member of the opposition to change the course of events by the decisions we might make. All too rarely is there any evidence that it is within our power to guide the course of events by arguments, no matter how sound they may be.
This is a situation that calls for action. It is a situation that calls for action by those who have the power. It is a situation that calls for action by those who have assumed so completely up to this time the responsibility for handling this matter. One of the things which makes the situation so precarious and which makes it so necessary that there be a definition of policy is the enormous surplus of wheat and other foods in the United States. Large though our total may be, and very large though it may be in proportion to the rest of our production, it is still comparatively small side by side with that of the United States.
There is this difference also that must be borne in mind. Under the procedure they follow the farmer is guaranteed a payment for his wheat. At the present time he is guaranteed a payment of $2.21 a bushel. The government is the owner of this great surplus. The government is in a position to trade with it in foreign markets. Realizing that this is a commodity they have bought and that they own, with their enormous annual income they are in a position to do things which would have a very profound effect upon our economy. I do not question the good will, the good intentions and particularly the attitude of the government and the people of the United States. Nevertheless, over the objections of the government of Canada they made this reduction and we were bound to follow. There are some differences in our better types of wheat, but substantially we are dealing with the same commodity in the markets of the world.
We cannot disregard the effect of such decisions as they make with regard to the marketing of that commodity. Our position is very different. Our farmers own the wheat. Our farmers bear the direct impact of any reduction of this kind. Our farmers will suffer directly as the result of anything that may happen which carries still further the liquidating process now under way in the United States. Can there be any assurance that what was done a few days ago means the last step in liquidating this surplus? If there is not, then let us face with reality, frankness and candour the effect that this will have upon our farmers and upon our whole economy.

Wheat-Marketing of Surplus
Let us remember that, while American farmers under their system are protected substantially against such reductions, our farmers have been unable to realize even then-immediate requirements in some cases from the stored grain, and their credit has already been substantially reduced by these things that have occurred within the past few days. Therefore there is infinitely greater need for a clear declaration of policy here than there is in the United States. I submit that instead of having a clearer declaration of policy here there is a much clearer declaration of policy in the United States and that the farmers of that country know where they stand much better than our farmers do at this time.
I repeat that the situation is such that it is not for us to offer a solution for a situation that demands immediate attention. Over and over again the government has said: We will assume the responsibility; the people have entrusted us with that responsibility. It is the government, under these international arrangements and under the various devices that have been employed, which must act if anything is to be done.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I submit that in the interests of the farmers of western Canada, who must be so greatly disturbed at this time; in the interests of all farmers in Canada whose farm products will be affected in their value by what happens to wheat, as we have so often learned in the past; in the interests of the retail merchants in the communities which serve them; in the interests of our various organizations which serve our producers, I believe that there is no more urgent demand confronting the government now than that for a clear, understandable declaration of policy which will make it possible for our farmers and others to plan for the balance of this crop year and for the coming crop year which will be upon us in less than two months.
I would ask that this matter be dealt with not as a want of confidence motion. I ask that the statement of the opposition be taken as definite that we would prefer that it be dealt with as a free vote so that members of the house can express their opinion to the the government that there should be a declaration of policy at this time. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker):
That all the words after "That" to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"this house is of the opinion that in view of the present grave situation in the matter of international wheat trading the government should make an immediate declaration as to its policy respecting the marketing of our Canadian wheat surplus."
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: The announcement made yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian price for wheat was to be reduced 10J cents per bushel constitutes a very serious blow indeed to the economy of western Canada and also to the whole Canadian economy. The minister for commerce and agriculture in Australia, Mr. John McEwen, in a statement appearing in the press yesterday has pointed out the dangers that exist in the present wheat situation. He says that the present practices being followed may lead to a depression in wheat prices similar to that prevailing in the 1930's.
I see by a press dispatch this evening that the United States is now offering low grade wheat for as little as $1.30 a bushel or 24-5 cents a bushel under the price of Canadian feed wheat.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is out-ofcondition wheat.


Hazen Robert Argue: The dispatch did not say out-of-condition wheat, it said light-test wheat.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Out-of-condition wheat.


Hazen Robert Argue: This is just another one of those optimistic comments that we have had month after month, and every time the minister makes a forecast it is just a matter of weeks until his forecast is proven wholly wrong.


Clarence Decatur Howe: All I am asking is that my hon. friend quote the newspaper accurately.


Hazen Robert Argue: The inference now that the United States is just selling something that is out of condition may or may not be borne out by the facts. The press statement I read did not say that the three million bushels of light-test wheat being offered in Minneapolis at $1.30 per bushel was out-ofcondition wheat. The Argentine is now selling wheat at between $1.63 and $1.66 per bushel. Unless steps are taken to prevent a further deterioration in the price of Canadian wheat the results will be catastrophic to western Canada.
I listened before six o'clock to the speech delivered by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and I heard his amendment calling on the government for a declaration of policy. I am sure we on this side of the house support the proposition that it is time now for the government to declare its policy in relation to the marketing of wheat. But I was disappointed that the official opposition,

in the statement made by its leader, apparently was unable to offer a single concrete suggestion to the government as to what should be done to meet this very grave situation. Before I conclude tonight I shall offer suggestions to the government which I believe, if adopted, would provide a solution.
We have asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and we have asked the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) what steps have been taken to co-operate with the United States in a sales policy. The United States has a large surplus of wheat. We have a large surplus. The question has been asked:	What co-operation is there between
Canada and the United States in deciding on a sales policy? The answer that has come back from the Minister of Trade and Commerce is that we are not co-operating because such co-operation would mean a combine on this continent in the sale of wheat.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friends might occasionally be accurate. I at no time said we are not co-operative. I said we are not adopting the common sales policy which would mean a cartel in respect of the sale of wheat, but we are co-operating to the extent of meeting and comparing our respective views preceding action. The action taken by the United States was preceded by a meeting called by the United States.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is what I meant.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If that is what you meant, then I do not know what you mean now.


Hazen Robert Argue: All that happens is that the Canadian government or the United States government, one or the other, takes the lead in cutting prices and in a matter of hours the other one follows suit. Unless the Canadian and United States governments adopt a similar policy, and not an independent policy with each country cutting its price then there is going to be great difficulty ahead for the western wheat producer.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce stated in the house that he had no idea of co-operation because, and these are his words as they appear at page 5302 of Hansard for June 1, 1954:
I hardly think the idea of forming a combine against the world would be popular in either country.
If he meant by that that the present policy is going to be continued, with one country cutting the price and then the other, there is little hope for the western wheat producers. It is rather easy to blame the United States for cutting the price of wheat. I want to point out that it was the Canadian
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus government that started the price war. It was the Canadian government, not the United States government, that made the first slash in the price of wheat, and that was on February 16, at 1.30 central standard time, when the price of Canadian wheat was reduced by seven cents a bushel at Fort William-Port Arthur. One hour and forty-five minutes later the United States followed suit. The Canadians broke the price of wheat on February 16, and the price of wheat was broken at Port Arthur-Fort William because these ports cannot compete with the port of Vancouver at the same price.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce is from Port Arthur, and he knows-


Clarence Decatur Howe: How small can a man get?


Hazen Robert Argue: That is all right; it is not a matter of smallness, it is a matter of record. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is from Port Arthur, and he knows-


Clarence Decatur Howe: And he therefore cut the price at Port Arthur!


Hazen Robert Argue: The Minister of Trade and Commerce is from Port Arthur, and he realizes that the freight rates from Port Arthur down the great lakes to Montreal make that route relatively uneconomic in comparison with the Vancouver route. In order to give Port Arthur-Fort William an equal advantage the price of wheat was cut and the western wheat producer is being forced to subsidize, by seven cents a bushel at that time and by six cents a bushel now, a relatively uneconomic route.
I come back to the first statement I made that the Canadian government started the price war by slashing the price of wheat by seven cents a bushel on February 16. We cannot blame the United States now particularly if she follows suit, and this time cuts the price of wheat by ten cents a bushel. We on this side of the house do not believe that the present capitalistic system will function.
We have said that the only time agriculture is able to sell its products under this system is during a war, or shortly after; that with the present type of government, the present administration and the present policies being followed, sooner or later we would come to a period of surpluses, loss of markets and depression. And we warned the government about that after the war.
We supported the proposition that there should be an international arrangement for the sale of surplus food on the international markets. The food and agriculture organization of the United Nations advanced specific proposals for the setting up of an
5736	HOUSE OF
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus international commodity clearing house, a proposal whereby surplus food would be taken off the regular market and would, by an orderly method, be marketed in those countries that lacked purchasing power, and where that food was needed. And at the conference in 1949, to the everlasting shame of this government and to the everlasting shame of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), as the representative of the Canadian government, he opposed the setting up of an international commodity clearing house, opposed the establishing of a world food pool.


Mr. Gardiner:: You are just dreaming.


Hazen Robert Argue: No, I am not dreaming, at all. But the minister may have been dreaming when he made his speech to that conference.


Mr. Knighi:: Let us hear his speech.


Hazen Robert Argue: On November 24, 1949 the Minister of Agriculture said:
Any transactions developed under the short term trading functions will be subject to concurrence by the governments concerned, and the major details of such transactions will also be subject to agreement by governments. This being the case it hardly seems necessary to have an international agency actually buying and selling in commodity markets. It may even be questioned whether such activity in commodity markets by an international agency is desirable. It seems to us, therefore, that the question of the creation of a large capital fund for such a purpose is not necessarily an issue.
It is clear from that statement that the Minister of Agriculture was opposing such a question. Then he went on to say:
As has been pointed out in other conferences, however, national governments can, and do, perform this function and we do not see that stocks held by an international agency will, in the short run, contribute to any improvement in the present situation. Canada, for example, has provided for the holding of stocks of wheat under government control.
That is just as plain as it could be.


James Garfield Gardiner: On short term.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is just as plain as it could be.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend will admit that that is for a short term; you are talking about a long term policy.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am talking about the very clear fact that the Minister of Agriculture was opposed to the plan set forth by Sir John Boyd Orr in 1949.


James Garfield Gardiner: I never did oppose Sir John Boyd Orr, at any time. I supported Sir John Boyd Orr every time he appeared before the conference.


Hazen Robert Argue: And there is just as much accuracy in that statement as in a great many other statements made by the Minister of Agriculture.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I could not be more accurate than my hon. friend I would not speak at all.


Hazen Robert Argue: Canada, with the help of the United States, opposed the international commodity clearing house. The record is clear, and the statement of the Minister of Agriculture is clear.


James Garfield Gardiner: Canada did no such thing.


Hazen Robert Argue: It was opposed in-


James Garfield Gardiner: Canada did not do any such thing, and neither did I.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Minister of Agriculture can "beller" all he likes, and he can make his forty minutes speech when the time comes, but he cannot change the record of his statement at that conference.


James Garfield Gardiner: And he does not want to, either.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He has tried often enough,


Hazen Robert Argue: The government went on, in spite of the warning from this group-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: -and changed the marketing of agricultural products from Great Britain to the United States. We said that the United States was not a reliable market for Canadian agricultural products. We said that Canadian agricultural products in the main competed with similar agricultural products produced in the United States, that before long the Americans would have surpluses of their own and that they would be keeping out Canadian surpluses from here. And we have seen that very thing happen.
The Americans have kept out our wheat and our barley and our cheese and our powdered milk and our oats and our dairy products. The United States has kept out almost all of Canada's surplus agricultural products that we have attempted to market. And the government has lost the British market for Canadian bacon and cheese and eggs, and other important commodities.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask what action the United States has taken to keep out Canadian barley? I am not aware that Canadian barley was kept out.


Hazen Robert Argue: That was a mistake, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: It is all a mistake.


Hazen Robert Argue: My hon. friend behind me said "oats", and then I said barley. I stand corrected. But I will make this forecast, that just as soon as there is a tiny surplus of American barley, Canadian barley will be added to that list. So if I am not right tonight, it is probably just a matter of time, in the short run, when I will be right, and the Americans will be adding barley to the host of other Canadian agricultural products now prohibited.


James Garfield Gardiner: Stay on the short run and you will be all right.


Hazen Robert Argue: We have lost the British market for other products and the British market now is being lost for Canadian wheat. The loss of our overseas market for grain means very serious times ahead for the Canadian wheat producers. And so I say that this government is directly responsible for the economic position of western Canada today.


Mr. Byrne:: That's a good one!


Hazen Robert Argue: No attempt has been made to co-operate with the United States in obtaining a common sales policy. The Minister of Agriculture opposed in 1949 an international food pool to take care of our surpluses; and now, five years later, Canada faces the results of that opposition by the Minister of Agriculture in 1949.
And I tell the government this, that the wheat producers of western Canada hold this government responsible for the economic position they are in today. When this session began last fall we in this group asked the government to take steps to put money into the hands of the farmers. We asked the government to make advances to buy grain in store on the farms. And we were told that the economic position was good, that the farmers had never been in a stronger position. The Minister of Agriculture gave his usual line of optimism-that everything was fine, that the export market was running high, that everything was going to be all right in a matter of months.
Well, everything is not all right; everything is getting worse. Our export markets have fallen to the point where the export market for wheat in May of this year showed one of the lowest figures in our history, far below the average for the month of May in exports in the last ten years.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce said, "Oh well, one of the reasons our exports are down is that there was a strike at the port of Vancouver a year ago, and that resulted
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus in large exports in the month of May, after the strike was over. Our exports in May of last year were 46 million bushels, and for May of this year-and these figures are not absolutely accurate; they are approximate, but the minister said the other day that they are nearly correct-were about 16 million bushels. Two years ago, in 1952, when there was no Vancouver strike, May exports amounted to 43-7 million bushels. If you do not want to take May of last year, take May of two years ago. The exports dropped from 43 million bushels down to 16 million bushels.
I have gone through the wheat board figures back as far as 1946, and 1 would have gone back even farther but the export figures for wheat were not listed for May in the annual reports before 1946. All of the figures, as you go back, are substantially higher than the export figure for May of this year. In the five-week period a year ago ending June 3, 1953 our exports of wheat were 44 million bushels. In the same five-week period this year our exports of wheat were only 18 million bushels. In the five-week period a year ago our exports of barley were 18 million bushels, and in the recent five-week period our exports of barley were 3 million bushels. Our wheat exports were reduced by 60 per cent; our barley exports were reduced by well over 80 per cent.
I never thought last fall that our May exports would be as low as they are. But I could see that there was difficulty ahead. At that time we asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce to give us a realistic analysis of the situation. Of course when the minister makes a statement he makes the headlines, and we do not complain. The remarks of the rest of us are tucked lower down in the statement or on the third or fourth page. The minister's statement gets the attention and the retailers, the small merchants of western Canada, believe his statement to be accurate. Since they believed that the minister's analysis of the grain situation was correct they gave substantial credit, and today by the dozens all over western Canada implement dealers, automobile dealers and merchants of all kinds are going into bankruptcy.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: How is the hardware business?


Hazen Robert Argue: I am talking about the retail merchant in the small town which is in the heart of the wheat-growing area, and the small merchant in the ordinary town in western Canada is facing great difficulty. Part of the reason why he is facing the difficulty is to be found in the kind of advice and the kind of forecasts made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He has said in those

Wheat-Marketing of Surplus forecasts to the retail merchants that everything was fine, the wheat picture was wonderful, exports were the first or the second greatest on record in our history. But now the facts are coming in, and they have proven the minister wrong. The real facts of the situation are forcing a great many merchants in western Canada to the wall. Now is the time for action from the government to save the agricultural economy, to save the small merchant and to save the whole Canadian economy from one end to the other.
I will make another comment as to what one of the results of this latest reduction in the price of wheat may be. The price of No. 1 northern is down to $1.72 basis Fort William-Port Arthur, and the wheat board has to have 10 cents or so a bushel to operate, to pay its storage costs and to pay other costs of operations.


An hon. Member:: The amount is 4J cents.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is a different figure; it does not come into it at all. Therefore the wheat board, while it is operating on a gross margin of 32 cents on No. 1 northern wheat, has to pay out of that 32 cents a great many of its expenses. I should like to know from the Minister of Trade and Commerce-and I will sit down if he will give me the answer right now-will there be an interim payment of wheat for 1953? I ask the minister that question.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Certainly there will be an interim payment.


Some hon. Members:: All right; sit down.


Hazen Robert Argue: I would like to know then from the minister if we can expect the interim payment in the calendar year of 1954?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am glad; we are making progress.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Hazen Robert Argue: If we can keep on this way 1 will never sit down. Now we are making some progress. Can the minister say how much it will be?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, we must have an understanding. What will my hon. friend do if I tell him that? He said he would sit down and he did not sit down.


Hazen Robert Argue: Make it twenty cents and I will sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the best way to have questions put and answers given is to get the Speaker out of the chair and to


go into committee of supply on the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Mr. Harkness:: Don't interrupt the auction sale.


Hazen Robert Argue: As I have been saying, Mr. Speaker, one of the results of the reduction in the price of wheat is not only to make the economic position of the western farmer more difficult, but to bring about economic stress throughout the nation. Of one thing I am sure. There would never have been 6,000 men laid off in the automobile industry a few days ago if the western farmer had been able to sell a reasonable proportion of his 1953 crop. Every time the price of wheat goes down, every time the income of the western producer goes down, unemployment in Canada goes up. And the reduction in the price of Canadian wheat by 10J cents a bushel, unless something is done about it, is going to result in increased unemployment. That statement is borne out by a press release today by the Canadian Congress of Labour in which it says that in the light of events, in the light of the reduction in the price of wheat, the statement by the government that there would be an upswing in employment in the second half of the year looks silly. The Canadian Congress of Labour, the trade unionists, know that as farm income goes down unemployment goes up. If the government wants to reduce unemployment it has to prevent a further drop in agricultural income. I would go further and say it needs to restore agricultural income.
The Americans have reduced the price of wheat by 10 cents a bushel, but the Americans, under a Republican government, with the support of a Republican congress, have a parity support price for the main agricultural commodities, and that parity support price is being continued through 1955. Therefore the United States farmer is guaranteed, even with a drop in wheat prices of 10 cents a bushel, a price of over $2.20 a bushel. The Minister of Agriculture can shake his head.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is 90 per cent of parity.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is exactly what I said, 90 per cent of parity, $2.20 a bushel. The United States farmer is in a good position. There is a Republican government in the United States, but their agricultural policy is much more progressive than that of a so-called Liberal government in the Dominion of Canada. In Canada, with the drop in the price of wheat by 10g cents a bushel, the farmer is not protected. The Canadian farmer takes the loss and is being put through the wringer. The United States farmer has some protection. Over the years the Liberal party has

opposed parity prices; it has opposed floor prices. It scarcely has a floor price worthy of mention.


James Garfield Gardiner: It has floor prices.


Hazen Robert Argue: The only floor price worth anything is the floor price on butter.


James Garfield Gardiner: A while ago you said we didn't have any.


Hazen Robert Argue: If the minister wants to stand up and tell the Canadian farmer he should cheer because there is a floor price on butter then he can go ahead, but I say the Canadian government has always opposed the principle of floor prices, and the principle of orderly marketing. Just a few days ago in this house members on the government side of the house voted against a motion moved by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) asking for a floor price on hogs and cattle equal to the average price prevailing from 1951 to 1953.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have floor prices on hogs, eggs, and butter.


Hazen Robert Argue: This is a new comment. The floor price on hogs is 23 cents per hundredweight. But what happens as soon as the price on hogs goes down near the floor-the minister rushes in and yanks out the floor.
The government will not set a floor price and has always been opposed to floor prices. If our western economy is to be saved I believe the government itself should pay to the wheat board the 10J cents a bushel by which wheat has been reduced. The farmers of western Canada should receive a guarantee that for every bushel of No. 1 northern wheat sold there will go into the Canadian wheat board fund $1.82. Someone says that that would be a subsidy policy and would mean a levy on the taxpayers of Canada.
I listened to former president Truman on the radio the other night. I have always been an admirer of Harry S. Truman, and the economic policies he propounded. He said a democratic government in the western world should now follow a fiscal policy of tax and spend, and tax and spend. In the course of that address he said we were told by some that the duty of the government is to balance the budget. But he said the duty of a democratic government today is to follow a fiscal policy which makes sure that the family budgets of the people of that nation are balanced, and that that is far more important than any system of so-called sound finance.
This government has said it was in favour of a cyclical budget. But we have not seen any as yet. This government is apparently
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus unable to adopt the farsighted economic measures necessary to prevent a further deterioration in the grain situation, and which are necessary to prevent a further deterioration in the unemployment situation.
I have never followed those who criticized labour for attempting to gain high wages. I believe history shows that the only time the farmer has received good prices for his products is during periods when labour is employed at high wages. I want to see full employment; I want to see high wages; and I believe that one of the best ways of bringing about full employment is to have adequate prices for agricultural products. Conversely, one of the ways of obtaining good prices for agricultural products is to have full employment. If this government wants to solve the agricultural situation and the unemployment situation it must increase agricultural prices, establish adequate floor prices, and embark on an adequate program of public works and public expenditures to make sure that our half a million unemployed are put back to work.
Because of unemployment in Canada today we are losing nearly a billion dollars in wealth production. That is the real burden on the economy of Canada. What we want from the Canadian government is an economic policy based on parity prices for the producer, and full employment at high wages for the industrial worker.
I believe the government should set aside a reserve of wheat and should purchase wheat in store on farms and pay the farmers for a substantial quantity of that wheat. It is impossible for farmers today to move wheat in any quantity, and farmers are unable to pay their outstanding obligations to merchants in the towns. They are unable to meet their current farming expenses, and unless a real improvement takes place soon the falling off in farm income is going to result in a further drastic lay-off in industry.
I would like to suggest to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that he go to Great Britain and endeavour to sign a Canadian-United Kingdom wheat agreement something along the lines of the U.K. wheat agreement signed after the war.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is that consistent with your idea that we sign an agreement with the United States to sell in partnership with them? How many agreements can we have at one time?


Hazen Robert Argue: I know the minister does not like agreements but I am quite prepared to say that I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce would be well advised to explore the possibility of signing an agreement with
5740	HOUSE OF
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus the United Kingdom which will guarantee to the Canadian wheat producers a reasonable share of that market. As my time is running out, Mr. Speaker, I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Bryson):
That the amendment be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and by adding thereafter the following words:
"and that the government should give consideration to including in such policy the provision of a floor price to the wheat producers of Canada at levels not less than the Canadian wheat board selling price, basis Fort William/Port Arthur, on Friday, June 4, 1954."
I believe, Mr. Speaker, the government should consider the acceptance of sterling and other soft currencies as part payment for wheat which can be shipped to those countries. The government should take every possible step toward removing tariff and trade barriers. The government should start a genuine program of economic assistance to underdeveloped countries. The present Colombo plan is very small and not in keeping with the generosity of the Canadian people, and we believe economic assistance should be greatly expanded.
The government should endeavour to cooperate with the United States to prevent continuation of the present price war and, as a final suggestion, I would urge upon the Minister of Trade and Commerce that no matter what happens he should not reduce the initial prices for wheat, oats, and barley for the next crop year which commences August 1, 1954.
I believe the industrial worker has a right to a job at a decent wage. The farmer already has a job and in that job he endeavours to produce food. The farmers of Canada have been successful in the production of food as never before, and I believe they are fully justified in calling on the government to take the responsibility for marketing that food and distributing it throughout the world wherever it is needed. The farmer has fulfilled his part of the bargain by producing the food. It is now up to the government to adopt measures which will distribute that food.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, this appears to me to be a time when members of this house and the government should be exercising the calmest judgment of which they are capable because the situation we face is a serious one. However, there is nothing to be gained by going into hysteria or trying to whip up hysteria. I believe that we have got to look at the facts calmly and deliberately, to try to feel our way through those facts and, against the


background of those facts, to adopt a policy that will ensure that agriculture in the future will not be demoralized.
It is true that the reduction of 10J cents in the wheat price that was announced yesterday will be a terrific jolt to Canadian farmers. I am not saying that all of them are going to see blue ruin in it but at any rate they are looking at it today in the light of the facts and are realizing that their crops now in store are going to bring them many millions of dollars less than they would have brought had the price not been cut. Coming on top of all of the other set-backs that the farmers have had during the past few years, I can well imagine that among our farmers there will now be a widespread feeling almost of demoralization.
I do not need to take much of the time of the house to describe the serious effects that followed the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak some years ago and the consequent closing of the United States market to our beef. I think a single sentence is enough. As a consequence of the closing of the United States market against western Canadian beef the livestock industry in western Canada was dealt a blow from which it will take many years to recover, if it ever does recover. That is just one of the tragedies that can result from following a marketing policy described as putting all or most of your eggs in one basket.
On top of the blow to the livestock industry came the unprecedented glut of grain storage facilities in western Canada as a consequence of which, as has already been described, a good many thousands of farmers have been unable to market enough of their grain to pay their bills. Many of them have suffered foreclosures on machine and automobile contracts and other things, and the retail merchants in the farming areas have found it necessary to cut off completely or almost completely extensions of credit to the farmers. There has been widespread difficulty among the farmers just to live and to keep their heads above water during this past winter. I am not for a moment suggesting that we belabour the government for all of that difficulty, but these are just facts that we have got to look in the face.
As if these things I have mentioned were not enough, the United States have put up embargoes against certain of our Canadian coarse grains or they have succeeded in inducing the Canadian authorities to impose export restrictions in the same field. In addition to all this, the costs of farm production have been steadily rising while over-all

farm prices have been on the decline. It is therefore no wonder that the average farmer feels that agriculture in this country is and has been for months facing a crisis.
Anyone who took a careful look at the huge accumulations of foodstuffs in storage in the United States last year at this time saw potential trouble ahead. At that time some of us said that if the United States felt inclined to start cutting prices as a means of capturing the British wheat market or as a means of getting rid of some of the huge stocks in store and owned by the United States government, the result could be a price war which could force farmers' returns down to disastrous levels. We saw one factor, of course, that might prevent such a price war, namely, the fact that the United States government had guaranteed the American farmer a support price of $2.21 a bushel for his wheat until the end of 1954. Since then their guarantee has been extended until the end of 1955 at 90 per cent of parity. But it seems that that factor has not been effective in preventing the cutting of prices in order to capture world markets and to move grain.
The members of this group a year ago- yes, more than a year ago-expressed regret that Britain did not become a party to the international wheat agreement. Had Britain joined the scheme there would have been considerably more stability to world wheat prices. I am perfectly sure of that. Some of us-and I was amongst them, as were the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), and the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose (Mr. Fair)-thought it was a great mistake not to set the ceiling price under the agreement at $2 instead of $2.05. Perhaps that may- and I say "may" advisedly-have made quite a difference in the situation. It may have resulted in bringing Britain into the agreement. Had she come into the agreement I am sure that she would have stayed in it. Of course this thing can be argued both ways. I do not know for certain what would have been the situation, but I feel that Britain would have come in. However we stayed with the $2.05. We stayed with the United States in that regard and here we are.
However that may be, we are now facing a situation where the United States made a substantial cut in the export wheat price and the Canadian wheat board has felt compelled to bring our own price down by 10& cents in order to compete successfully for markets. That is a fact we have to keep in our minds. I am not criticizing-and I want to make this point abundantly clear-the Canadian
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus wheat board for taking this action. It seems to me that with them it was not a question of undercutting; rather with them it was a matter of competing for markets. If the United States particularly cuts wheat export prices, then we in Canada have to compete or simply not sell. So far as I can see, there are no other alternatives.
I do not think that the farmers themselves are going to be too much exercised over the present price, which I believe is something about $1.70 after the cut of yesterday. But, Mr. Speaker, what they will worry about is where we are headed in the days to come. I think that is the important thing. I think the time has come when it is incumbent upon the government and upon this parliament to give assurance to the farmers of Canada that effective action will be taken to prevent any price war that may develop, thereby forcing the returns to the farmers down below economic levels. I am quite certain that whatever action we may take we may not be able to prevent a price war. The pressures in the United States are very great. The possibilities of their starting a price war are still very genuine. But however that may be, I think it is necessary for us to give to the farmers of Canada the assurance that in any price war that takes place, their prices and the return to the farmers from the sale of their products must not be allowed to be forced down to uneconomic levels.
We think it is only fair and just that the government establish and maintain a floor price on wheat and on other farm products. While I am saying that I am going to say also that such a price-that is a fair and equitable floor price-for all primary products will have to come in the future. I do not see any way out of it. But I say that it is time that we adopted and gave evidence of maintaining an effective floor price for farmers that will guarantee them the cost of their production plus a reasonable margin of profit.
That is the level which we are convinced is right and just. We are convinced that a course of that kind is not only essential but is also completely justified. I could give a good many reasons and perhaps talk for quite a long time in doing so, but I am going to try to get right to the point and state the reasons why I believe that a course of that kind would be completely justified and do so in as short a time as I possibly can.
In the first place let us not overlook the fact that during the war when the world price was high Canadian farmers were prevented from enjoying those high prices by the policies of the government. They were

Wheat-Marketing of Surplus promised price stabilization on a long-term basis in return for taking a lower price during the war. Their losses under the British wheat agreement and the domestic cheap bread policy ran into hundreds of millions of dollars. A grateful Canadian public therefore should not now desert the farmers and leave them to be victimized by any price war that might ensue.
It might be a different story if the world did not need the food that is piled up in this country and the United States, but I want to emphasize and repeat what has already been said by others. There are parts of the world that are desperately in need of food and the portents of the future indicate to me an even greater need. This is no time therefore to discourage production. The farmer's will to produce and his ability to produce must be preserved unimpaired or the world will suffer and we will suffer with it. That is an important thing to keep in our minds.
I come now to the second reason that justifies the establishment of an effective floor price for agricultural products. Our farmers are now and have for many years been compelled to buy the great bulk of all the things entering into their cost of production on a protected market, and our western farmers are penalized also by having to pay heavy freight rates both ways on the things they sell and on the things they buy, the highest freight rates in America.
I want to give a single example of this protection. Some years ago, I think it was in 1944, Mr. Ilsley, the then minister of finance, stated in the house that it was government policy to free from duties all implements, instruments and apparatus used by farmers producing farm products. Over the years since that time that policy has been carried out to a very large degree, but the government still maintains-and I only give this as an example-a 15 per cent duty against the importation from the United States, the only place where they are made, of wagons, sleds and trailers, all very essential to farm production. For three years that I know of, and perhaps many more than that, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has been asking the government to implement the federal policy outlined by Mr. Ilsley in 1944 and remove the duty on wagons, sleds and trailers imported from the United States.
I personally asked for the same thing twice this year, and the reply I got from the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance was that this year the submissions from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture came in rather late. I am asking: What

about the submissions made two years ago by the federation of agriculture, and last year? Certainly it cannot be argued that those requests came in too late for consideration in this year's budget. But they were not considered.
I cite this particular example only to show how little consideration is given to matters affecting agricultural costs and how long injustices have to continue before the government finally is moved to remedial action. While it is true that most items of farm machinery are now allowed into Canada duty-free, most other things that farmers must buy are protected, and many of them quite unreasonably.
I give a third reason to justify the position that I have taken. Canadian wheat farmers must compete with those countries using depreciated currencies. For some years Canada pegged our dollar at a 10 per cent discount in terms of the American dollar. Our wheat sales on the international market are paid for in American funds. The government not so long ago abandoned the fixed rate of exchange and the dollar has risen to a premium position which penalizes our farmers to the extent of 18 to 20 cents a bushel on export wheat compared with their returns during the period in which the dollar was pegged at 90 per cent of parity. This 18 to 20 cents differential is a serious loss which places the Canadian wheat producer at a decided disadvantage compared with the farmers of the United States and those in countries whose currencies are depreciated. It is a very real thing that we have got to face.
I recall the situation that developed in the early thirties. We had lots of wheat for export at that time. Our markets were disrupted both internally and externally but Prime Minister Bennett declared that he would blast his way into the world markets. It sounded good at the time, but the fact is that Australia and New Zealand, both wheat sellers, devalued their currencies and pegged them, if I remember correctly, at 25 per cent below the British pound. Canada did not take similar action and consequently our farmers had to take ruinous prices for their wheat while Australia and New Zealand got rid of theirs and obtained a good price for it. I am wondering whether we are not approaching a similar situation today.
For the reasons I have mentioned, and others I could speak about if I took the time, I am convinced that we must establish effective floor prices for wheat and other farm products at a level that will return to the farmer his cost of production plus a fair profit. The farmer must be kept in business and agriculture must be maintained in a healthy condition. I see no other solution of

the problem than the one I have mentioned. What the mechanics of establishing that floor price will be I am not going to presume to suggest now. That seems to me to be a matter for the government experts to work out. But I want to emphasize though that it might be necessary-I say "might be"-to devalue the dollar again. I am not sure.
However, it certainly will be necessary for the government to strengthen the Agricultural Prices Support Act and certainly to remove the escape clause that is now in the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act because, as was pointed out by my colleague, the hon. member for Acadia, when he spoke on May 17, as found at page 4805 of Hansard, subsection 3 of section 3 of the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act as it now stands completely nullifies the effective operation of the Agricultural Prices Support Act. As was quite well said by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), speaking a few minutes ago, that clause renders the Agricultural Prices Support Act almost useless because at any time the minister can, under subsection 3 of section 3 of the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act, withdraw any support that may have been extended under the other act. That is why I say that the escape clause must be removed.


James Garfield Gardiner: If there is any such clause there it has never been used.


Solon Earl Low: It is there. The minister will have to admit that it is an escape, and it gives no guarantee whatsoever that even if we strengthened the Agricultural Prices Support Act we would be able to carry it through. I am not saying it has been used or it will be used, but certainly if we are going to give the farmers of the country any assurance whatsoever that we will maintain effective floor prices, we have got to strengthen both acts and certainly remove that escape clause.


James Garfield Gardiner: Have you the section of the act there?


Solon Earl Low: Yes, I can get it in one minute.


James Garfield Gardiner: While the hon. member is looking it up, I should like to say that the co-operative marketing act was passed five years before the other act so that it could not have been intended that it should make any difference in the Agricultural Prices Support Act.


Solon Earl Low: I point out to the hon. minister that it is there. Section 3, subsection 3 of the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act says:
An agreement made under subsection 1 may include a provision that the minister may on such notice as he deems fair and reasonable require that the delivery of an agricultural product to a
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus co-operative association, processor or selling agency shall be discontinued with the result that the minister shall not be liable in respect of any agricultural product delivered to the co-operative association, processor or selling agency after such requirement.


James Garfield Gardiner: That has nothing to do with the Agricultural Prices Support Act.


Solon Earl Low: It could be used as an escape if any floor price arrangement were made.


James Garfield Gardiner: It never would be by us.


Solon Earl Low: I am glad to hear the minister say that is so, but it remains there as a potential threat just the same.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not the same thing at all. Under the act from which you are quoting we sit down and make an agreement with a co-operative organization to do a certain thing; that has no relationship to the other general provision.


Mr. Quelch:: That is the act under which we guarantee the initial price for marketing boards.


James Garfield Gardiner: But it has nothing to do with the general floor price under the Agricultural Prices Support Act.


Victor Quelch: No.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is something that is set by law.


Solon Earl Low: I certainly did not intend to imply it had anything to do with the Agricultural Prices Support Act, but as I say if you are going to establish effective floor prices for agricultural products, then that clause must be removed or some other action taken to remove the threat.


James Garfield Gardiner: It has no relation to it at all.


Solon Earl Low: I cannot at this moment debate whether it will or will not be used. The fact that the clause is there gives the government an escape from any obligation it may have, particularly in guaranteeing initial payments.
Now then to go on, I do believe it is essential also that the world, particularly those countries that do produce food materials in surplus, press forward as fast as possible toward the establishment of some international distribution agency such as an international commodity clearing house. I feel that that is going to be an essential in the future, and the sooner we get such an international body for distributing surplus food products, the better. I do not see any orderly way of taking care of the situation without some such international agency.
I think also that we have to change our flunking relative to the acceptance of some

Wheat-Marketing of Surplus sterling currency in settlement of any balances owing Canada by Britain. So far as I am concerned there has never been a single valid reason why Canada should not have started accepting some sterling as far back as 1945 and 1946. I am convinced that if we had, instead of plunging into the Bretton Woods agreements, our trading position and that of Britain today would be far stronger than they are. I feel, too, that our markets for farm products would have been rendered far safer and much more stable if we had shown a willingness to accept from Britain the only thing she had at the time to offer us, her own currency, in part payment at least of the balance owing us.
I remind the hon. member for Assiniboia when he speaks about losing markets and that sort of thing, that he and his party voted with the government for plunging Canada into the Bretton Woods agreements in 1945, and they had plenty of chance to get their eyes open. I remind him, too, that he and his colleagues voted against a motion which we moved just last fall in this house calling upon the government to accept some sterling -I do not say all-in settlement of Britain's trade balances. I remind the house that in the early part of this session we moved an amendment calling for the acceptance of sterling in the way I have mentioned. In my judgment it was very foolishly turned down, with the exception of certain members of the Conservative party who supported it.
I remind the house also that since we moved that amendment last fall calling upon this government to proclaim its readiness to accept some sterling in payment for balances owing, as well as the currencies of other countries, the United States has adopted a policy of accepting not only sterling but the currencies of other countries as well in payment for surplus foods. We pointed out on many occasions that we in this group have a sound and scientific method of financing internally the export to other countries of those products for which we are prepared to accept the currencies of those countries in payment. The proper use of the Bank of Canada would make such financing possible without involving us in any inflationary trends or increases in the burden of interest, and we would not have to pay an inflated public debt.
At any rate the government will have to work out the mechanics of an effective and fair support price system for agriculture. I do not see any escape from that. I point out that the government of the United States has extended for another year the 90 per cent parity support she has had in effect for some years for agricultural products to protect


her own farmers. I do not believe anybody in this house-certainly I would not-would advocate a rigid support policy like that in the United States; not for one moment. Ours should be a flexible support system designed to support-I underline "support"-rather than to provide an incentive for all out production of food materials, at least until world trade has been put on a satisfactory basis of exchange of goods between nations. It looks to me, Mr. Speaker, as though we have to act now. We have to let the farmers of this country know we are prepared to act, and act quickly if Canadian agriculture is to be kept in a healthy condition.


Clarence Decatur Howe: 
William Earl Rowe: Getting less all the time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, unfortunately, we had a short crop that year. In 1948-49 world trade was 992 million bushels, of which our share was 222 million, or 22-4 per cent. In 1949-50 world trade was 846 million bushels, of which our share was 236 million, or 27-9 per cent of the total. In 1950-51 total world trade was 933 million bushels, of which our share was 225 million or 24-2 per cent. In 1951-52 world trade that year went up to 1,065 million bushels, of which our share was 346 million, or 32-5 per cent of the total. In 1952-53 world trade was 958 million bushels, of which our share was 378 million, or 39-5 per cent of the total.


James Garfield Gardiner: Going up all the time.
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus


Clarence Decatur Howe: And this is the interesting part for my hon. friends who have been declaiming tonight: In 1953-54, up to May 15, there were 496 million bushels that had entered into world trade; as of that date our share was 196 million bushels, or 39-5 per cent. In other words, so far as our share of world trade is concerned, we are riding at the peak.


Hazen Robert Argue: Does the minister have the figures broken down for the period beginning at the first of this year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Month by month, do you mean?


Hazen Robert Argue: No, the percentage. The minister gave the over-all trade in wheat for this crop year to date. Has he the figures showing our percentage in the total world trade for a recent month?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, this is from July 1, 1953 to May 15, 1954; do you require any more recent than that?


Hazen Robert Argue: Has the minister a four-month period? Has he the figure for the last four months, or for the last month or two?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have said many times in this House of Commons that export figures for one month indicate very little. I have seen people use those figures in an election, and before the election was over they were sorry they had used them, because the next month was quite different.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is it not true that the trend is down?


Clarence Decatur Howe: "The trend is down"-what? We are riding at the highest proportion of world trade we have had in the last ten years.


Hazen Robert Argue: Pretty small trade.


Clarence Decatur Howe: 
have sold very much wheat at that price. I think most sensible people know that you have got to balance your idea of price against your desire to get rid of the product. If you are satisfied to hold the product you do not need to lower the price. If you expect to sell in a competitive world, the price must be competitive with prices offered by other countries. That, I think, is the situation today.
It was felt that an abrupt drop was better than the kind of drop that falls away a cent a day or a cent or two cents a week, because once the abrupt drop is made the buyers have some confidence that the price is the price that will be maintained for a considerable period, and that the slowing down of purchasing that results from a steady lowering of prices will not result from the abrupt adjustment that has taken place within the last few days.
I could go on and speak of our policy, but I am sure it is unnecessary. But nevertheless I would point out that the policy on payments is that an initial price be fixed at the beginning of the season, and that deliveries of grain in the country be paid that initial price. That has been the policy. The present initial price has been $1.40 basis No. 1 northern for several years, and that is the initial price today. It has been said here that there is no floor under wheat. What more effective floor can there be than an outstanding offer to pay on the basis of $1.40 at terminal delivery point when wheat is delivered at the country elevator?


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister say whether that same floor will be continued beyond August?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I was offered inducements to forecast the future a few moments ago, and my hon. friend did not produce his inducement. I think now I will do no more forecasting while I am speaking here tonight.


Hazen Robert Argue: You would not dare make this one.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is the policy. It is contrasted with the policy of the United States, and some strange statements were made about the policy of the United States. We are told that there the farmer is given parity prices. Well, that is hardly the situation. We are told that the difference is that in Canada the wheat board does not own the wheat; whereas the United States government owns the wheat.
In the United States private grain can be delivered into an approved storage. The

farmer can borrow against that grain 90 per cent of parity which, as I understand it, is $2.21 a bushel. In other words, he can borrow 90 per cent of parity and he can hold that loan as long as he likes. If wheat goes above the loan price he may withdraw his grain from loan and deliver it into the market. In other words, the United States government does not own that grain for a considerable period. However, there is a period when, if the grain is not reclaimed, it passes into the possession of the government.


William Earl Rowe: What do they do with it if the price goes down?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is not a recoverable loan, and if it is left on loan longer than the loan period it then passes into the hands of the government. The situation in Canada of course is just the opposite. The farmer delivers his grain to the country elevator, delivers it to the wheat board and into the ownership of the wheat board. The wheat delivered to the country elevator in Canada, for which an advance has been paid, is the property of the wheat board, and it can be disposed of as the wheat board may determine.
It has been suggested that there are other methods of dealing with surpluses. Well, I remember one method very well. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition had it in mind when he suggested that there were other methods of dealing with surpluses, because there was a big surplus in the early 1930's. How was that dealt with? Well, the government for the first time entered into the wheat picture to protect the producer, and Mr. McFarland was appointed the agent of the government to buy wheat in the open market in quantities that would support the prices that the farmers would receive by marketing under the open market system. The Conservative government of that day operated that policy for a while and he bought a good deal of wheat. I do not know whether the funds were cut off or what the reason was, but I remember the terrible day when the price of wheat fell to 38 cents a bushel in store Fort William. That was about the blackest day the farmer ever knew, and that was in 1932 under the support policy of the Conservative government of that day.
However, that was succeeded in 1935 by the wheat board, and the wheat board was the creation of the Conservative government of that day. The original legislation brought down provided for a compulsory wheat board, and I may say that the government of that day was about as strong numerically as the government of this day.
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus


William Earl Rowe: No.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Pretty close to it. They had a huge majority.


An hon. Member:: Were you here?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, but I was a
very interested spectator because I was earning my living from building grain terminal elevators in those days. That bill was introduced in the house in 1934 but it seems that perhaps the government of the day were talked out of their position-


Donald Methuen Fleming: By the Liberals?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, the Liberals had some very able men then, as we have on the Liberal side today. But I am sorry to say the government of that day was not very firm in its convictions and the bill was watered down with the introduction of a voluntary pool, and it was that voluntary pool, established under legislation passed in 1935, which this government inherited when it came into office in the latter part of that year. Well, after all, the only guide to the future is the past, and I think when the Conservative party talk about how to handle a surplus problem in wheat the only guide one has is how they handled the surplus problem they encountered during their last term of office in this Canadian parliament. I think the policy I have discussed today, which we all understand and which is known throughout the west, will compare very favourably with the policy which was adopted by hon. gentlemen opposite to handle their surplus problem which was far less difficult than the problem facing us today.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What did you people do after coming in in 1935? You had a fire sale.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We cleaned up the pool and after we had cleaned house the prices paid to the producers rose steadily.


William Earl Rowe: They were at the lowest point in history.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The lowest point in history was in 1932 and I remember it well. The price was 38 cents a bushel.


James Garfield Gardiner: And 26 cents on the farm.


William Earl Rowe: I do not want to interrupt the minister because his speech is very interesting and he is revealing a little bit more of the information on policy for which we have been asking. But a short time ago the minister mentioned during the course of his remarks that if we are going to sell wheat we must be competitive. Are we to take it from that it is government policy to sell wheat in competitive world markets regardless of the world price?
5748	HOUSE OF
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus


Clarence Decatur Howe: We intend to be competitive. We think we have some control over the competitive situation. The North American supplies are the largest in the world and I do not think we in North America need panic if one country in another part of the world decides to cut its price below ours. It is almost inevitable that we in North America will hold some kind of blanket over the smaller exporting countries.


Douglas Scott Harkness: How do you intend to do it? Will you do as you did in 1935? Will you throw it on the market?


Clarence Decatur Howe: What market?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The world market.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We did not do
that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Your party did.


Clarence Decatur Howe: But prices were very much better after we took over. I will give you the figures, if you like. I have all sorts of figures here.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Do not screen the figures.


Clarence Decatur Howe: When my hon. friend from eastern Canada starts dreaming about prices we get some funny results.


William Earl Rowe: The figures are not so important as the principle.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, I will give the figures. You asked for them.


William Earl Rowe: No, I asked for the principle.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend begins to take interest when? I suppose about the thirties. Does he?


William Earl Rowe: I was interested a long time before that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We will start with 1927. That was a good year. These are farm prices: in 1927-28-and these are bureau of statistics figures-the price was 98 cents per bushel on the farm; 1928-29 it was 78 cents a bushel on the farm; in 1929-30 it was $1.03 on the farm; in 1930-31-I guess this must have been after the election-it was 47 cents a bushel on the farm; in 1931-32 it was 37 cents on the farm; in 1932-33 it was 34 cents on the farm-that was a great year and that figure was the average price on the farm for wheat; in 1933-34 it was 47 cents on the farm; in 1934-35 it was 60 cents on the farm; and then, what was the year we had the fire sale?-1935-36; the average price for 1935-36 was 60 cents; in 1936-37 it was 92 cents and in 1937-38 it was $1.03.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is the year you sold it to the farmer when there was a crop failure. You sold it to them for seed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, one would think that the prices must have got better when the government changed.
We have had several solutions offered for this problem. I think perhaps the most fantastic one is that by the hon. member for Assiniboia who deals in fantastic ideas. We are members of the international wheat agreement and we are partners with, I think, 48 other countries in that agreement, but in spite of that the hon. member suggests we have several other agreements. First, he would have an agreement with the United States to sell at the same price.


Hazen Robert Argue: Co-operate.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Co-operation, yes, but it must be an agreement and no nonsense about it. Then next he suggests an agreement with the United Kingdom and that would be a special agreement under which we would supply wheat to the United Kingdom and, I suppose, as an inducement we could give them a lower price. Is that it? I think that after you had made these three agreements you would be a little confused as to who was agreeing with whom. But in any case it is a fantastic idea and I shall not pursue it.


Hazen Robert Argue: You were pretty proud about the United Kingdom agreement when you had it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: But now we have other agreements.


Hazen Robert Argue: As long as your government signed it you were proud of it, but when someone else suggests it then the idea is fantastic.


Clarence Decatur Howe: All right, but one agreement at a time. Three at one time are too many. Then we have the old perennial that we should sell our wheat for sterling. That is a very good idea except that I do not know of anyone who wants to buy our wheat for sterling. The United States has been proposing the sale of wheat in local currency and I know only of two sales which have been put through on that basis. One was to Japan and the provision in that case was part gift and part sale. The part sale was conducted in yen which was to be used for the support of the United States army in that country. The other was a sale to Spain and part of that sale is to be paid for in pesetas and the pesetas are to be used in constructing aeroplane bases in that country.


William Earl Rowe: Is there one with West
Germany?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, they sell 1 or dollars to West Germany. Germany is practically a hard currency country today. Any country can apply to the United States for the purchase of wheat and for payment in the local currency, but they do not seem to do that. The reason is that a debt in local currency is just as difficult for most countries as a dollar debt and people prefer to trade in the currency of the country where the purchase is made.
Now, there is another fallacy, namely, that there are millions of starving people in this world who would be glad to get the wheat if someone gave it to them. I wish people who make that statement would just tell me where those people are and how we can get wheat to them. Pakistan had a bad time and the United States and Canada helped them. We gave a certain amount of wheat to Pakistan against Colombo plan funds. The United States I think gave a very big quantity of wheat. What happened? Pakistan was just not able to take all the wheat that the United States offered them and has not taken it to this day. Why? Because they could not put it into consumption.
Everybody suggests that India is a country that would be delighted to take gifts of wheat. India happened to have very good crops last year. The monsoons came at the right time. They have not been purchasers of wheat except to a very small extent and then mostly for milling and reshipment. They are not needing wheat as a gift from anybody and would not take it if it was offered.
Those are the areas most often spoken about as being the possible recipients for great quantities of wheat to feed starving people. I do not know of any. If my hon. friend knows of a place, I think we would consider very carefully helping out starving people wherever we find them; but I do not know where they are. I wish my hon. friend and other hon. members of this house who keep referring to the fact that there are starving peoples who would be glad to take large quantities of surplus wheat if we were willing to give it away would just remember these facts.
After all, the wheat trade of the world is one of the most ancient trades of all. Wheat has been moving between countries for, I suppose, a thousand years or more. Certain practices in the trade have developed, and those practices are just as good today as they were at any other time. Most countries prefer to deal in wheat as they have always dealt in it, namely, to buy it where they can buy it most cheaply on the basis of quality and
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus to pay for it in the currency of the country that supplies the wheat. Until I hear of many more sales in local currencies or of many more countries asking for the gift of wheat, I shall continue to believe that the methods of disposing of wheat being followed by the Canadian wheat board are those that are acceptable to our customers in all parts of the world.
As will have been noted from the figures I quoted for world consumption, world consumption is substantially down this year. Why? Because almost every country in the world had a bumper crop of wheat. Countries that have never exported previously have become exporters of wheat this year. Sweden has been a substantial exporter of wheat, as was Turkey. France has been exporting considerable quantities of wheat. France has been exporting more wheat than usual, although France in some years is an exporter and in other years is an importer. It is a country that is almost in balance of production against consumption.
We have had an unusual year and, of course, we on this continent harvested our third greatest crop. It is a problem we have to deal with. It has been said that the producers in the west are having an extremely tough time because they cannot deliver their wheat. May I point out that they are delivering the normal quantity of wheat, or more than the average of the past ten years.


Mr. Castleden:: Their production is almost twice as large.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I know their production is great; and if they could market it all they would have twice as much money as they have now. All I am pointing out is that they are marketing the normal quantity of wheat and they are receiving the normal income averaged over the last ten years.


George Hugh Castleden: Is it not true that at the present time the figures are about 170 million bushels short of what they were last year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I know. Last year was an extraordinary year. I have read the figures. It was the greatest marketing year that this country has ever seen. We never before sold nearly as much grain in a year as we sold last year. I wish the world consumption of wheat every year would permit us to sell that quantity of grain as our share of world markets. Unfortunately the number of bushels that make up our share of the world market depends on the over-all size of the world market. This year the total amount of wheat entering world markets is much smaller than it was last year.
As I say, we had representatives of western Canada in Ottawa at the agriculture
5750	HOUSE OF
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus committee. I took that opportunity to have a talk with each of them in order to find out whether, in his opinion, there was a need for supplementary income in western Canada. Some of them had taken a poll among their locals and were able to give me the result of the poll. The results of the polls that were taken showed that a small percentage-I think it was 1 per cent in the case of Saskatchewan-reported a need for supplementary financing.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question at that point?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Hazen Robert Argue: Was not the discussion based upon a loan with an interest rate of 5 per cent or 6 per cent?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We were discussing a loan; yes.


Hazen Robert Argue: The farmers already have more debt than they can handle; they do not want any more.


Clarence Decatur Howe: A farmer who worries about interest rates is not short of necessities, at any rate. A man in dire need does not worry about interest rates.


Hazen Robert Argue: He may not be starving when his granaries are full of wheat, but he is short of everything else.


Clarence Decatur Howe: 
Hazen Robert Argue: And the farmer takes the rap.


An hon. Member:: Make your own speech.


Hazen Robert Argue: You helped me make mine so I am helping you make yours.


An hon. Member:: You needed help.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is the difference
between driving ahead and R. B. Bennett's blasting?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We do not blast; we just hold what we have. We try very hard to do that. We have customers among the countries of the world. We know about the proportion of Canadian wheat that those countries are accustomed to take. We watch them closely. If they are not buying from us when our turn comes, we make inquiries to find out why. If it is a matter of price, that is one factor which, added to other factors, may indicate to the wheat board that a cut in price is necessary.
Those are the facts of life. That is the policy that the wheat board will follow. It is the purpose of the board to be competitive. Anyone who has tried to hold wheat off the market for a period in this country has headed for disaster. If proof of that statement is needed, I might refer back to the period from 1930 to 1935, which started with the holding of wheat off the world market.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister referred back to 1930 to 1935, I should like to refer back to a little bit more recent date when he insisted on $2.05 a bushel for wheat with regard to the United Kingdom market. From what the minister has just now said, surely we are to take it that this new policy is an abrupt change, a right-about-face, from the time when you held out for $2.05 with the United Kingdom. According to the statement you have just made tonight, you are going to sell wheat even if you have to cut the price further, and you are going to meet world competition and sell wheat wherever you can sell it, even though you have to reduce the price again.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad my hon. friend brought that up because I intended to touch on that- another fallacy. My hon. friend likes to bring up the fallacies and it gives me a chance to straighten out his ideas regarding the situation. When the delegates from the 42 importing countries and the 4 exporting countries met in Washington to revise the wheat agreement Canada was represented as an exporter. The purpose of the meeting, among other things, was to determine maximum and minimum prices for a new agreement. The United States took a very extreme view. I believe they started by asking for a maximum price of $2.50. The importing countries asked for a maximum price of $1.80.
Canada believed that both these were extreme and our efforts were largely devoted towards bringing the United States down to

a more reasonable view of a maximum price as well as attempting to bring the importing countries up to a more realistic price. After a great deal of negotiation 41 of the 42 importing countries agreed to accept $2.05. It was not Canada's price. It was a compromise between all the exporters and all the importers with Canada lending her best offices to bring about a meeting of the minds. After that meeting of minds was arrived at the United Kingdom announced that it was not prepared to sign the agreement. That country said that it would not go beyond $2.00. All the other 41 importing countries agreed to the maximum price of $2.05. Consequently at that stage the only question was whether Britain would or would not sign the agreement setting a price of $2.05 and Britain decided not to sign.
However, I point out that that was the maximum price. There was also a minimum price fixed, the minimum price being $1.55. The assumption is that if we have maximum and minimum prices there is an area between the two which is a trading area, and that is where the price of wheat is today. It is below the maximum and above the minimum, about half way between the two at the present time, and under conditions of surplus supplies in the exporting countries it is my opinion that it is a reasonable area within which the present price should be established.
My hon. friends can talk about maximum prices as though that meant something more than the term implies. It is true that there was pressure from the importing companies which kept the price at the maximum for a number of years. That pressure does not exist today. The pressure, if any, is from the exporting countries which are seeking to reduce their surpluses. But the average price of Canadian wheat today is $1.75i. In other words, it is about half way between the maximum and minimum prices. The price at Fort William is $1.72J and the price at Vancouver is $1.78i, and about half the grain is going to the west coast and half to the east coast. The price of $1.75 is not a bad split between $1.55 and $2.05. That is the price today. There is room for movement in either direction. A bad crop in one of the exporting countries, even in Canada, would probably move the price up, and another bumper crop would very likely move it down. But we have that area between $1.55 and $2.05 for trading before either the maximum or the minimum prices of the international wheat agreement become effective. I think that I have now explained government policy and exposed the fallacy of the ideas put forward by the opposition, and I will resume my seat.
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus


James Garfield Gardiner: If I may be permitted to do so I should like to make a correction resulting from a little exchange back and forth across the floor of the house when the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) was speaking. He made one correction and I want to make another. I interjected at that time that parity was $2.21. I just want to say that $2.21 was 90 per cent of parity.


William Earl Rowe: You are still wrong.


James Garfield Gardiner: In January, 1954.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the speech just delivered by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) outside of its historical review, in parts inaccurate and in other parts incorrect, leaves little hope for the Canadian farmer in the position in which he is today. I cannot understand why the minister did not tell the house and the country something of what has taken place between Canada and the United States with reference to this matter. There have been several meetings apparently designed to prevent or at least to postpone a price war among the wheat-producing nations of the world. There was a meeting in March between the cabinet ministers of Canada and the United States. What took place there? With the exception of a slight amount of information that the government has deigned to give to the house, there remains a blackout as far as Canadians are concerned.
Only yesterday the Australian minister for commerce and agriculture forecast a situation that should have been dealt with this evening by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He said that the slashing of prices is apt to continue and he goes on to point out that there could easily be a repetition of the depression story when a similar price war forced wheat below two shillings. What Canadians would have liked from the Minister of Trade and Commerce was not the rather jovial speech he delivered this evening, not as replete as usual with optimistic prophecy but nonetheless made in a jovial way; they would have liked him to give them hope, but what he pointed out may well happen. Further reductions may take place in order to meet world competition.
That can lead only to a very serious position for agriculture. What Canada would have liked to hear from the minister tonight is something of what the Canadian government has done with respect to pointing out to the government of the United States the terrible danger to the nations today of any policy in the nature of price cutting at this time which inevitably will cause difficulty and stress and create a dangerous situation in agriculture within our country.
5752	HOUSE OF
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus
Can we get any information? Yesterday I tried to ascertain what happened last week when there was a meeting in Washington between Canadian and United States representatives. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said he was not there and apparently did not know. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said that he was not there. If there ever was a conference where nobody was there and yet much apparently was decided it was that of ten days ago in Washington.
What Canadians are asking for today, what the western farmer is asking for today-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Everybody should eat more wheat.


John George Diefenbaker: -is something in the nature of a declaration by Canada with respect to the efforts it is making in reference to the United States to prevent anything in the nature of price cutting competition in wheat sales. But all we receive from the minister is a historical review of the thirties. Let me say this about the thirties. The Conservative party inherited exactly the same condition as prevails today as the result of world conditions, and a condition that arose while the Liberal party was in power. It is no use reliving that.


Douglas Charles Abbott: You will not inherit this one, John.


John George Diefenbaker: What Canadians want to know is what is the government going to do? What is its policy? What we received tonight was a historical review that gave no hope and little future to the western farmer who has asked parliament today to let him know what ti e situation is.
On motion of Mr. Diefenbaker the debate was adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Prince Albert moves that this debate do now adjourn. Before we adjourn I want to make a few observations at this time so that hon. members will consider them and perhaps give me their own views at a later stage. The amendment reads:
This house is of the opinion that in view of the present grave situation in the matter of international wheat trading the government should make an immediate declaration as to its policy respecting the marketing of our Canadian wheat surplus.
Now is it an amendment to ask that the government make an immediate declaration of its policy? An amendment has a certain objective, and the objective is to alter the main question so as to help hon. members state their position on policies. Is it an amendment, even if the amendment to a


motion to go into supply has not to be relevant, to ask that the government make an immediate statement of policy? Is it a parliamentary motion? That is the first question I should like to submit to hon. members.
The second question is this. I was away for a while looking over these amendments, and upon my return to the chair was informed that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) had made a speech. When he spoke a moment ago, what did he do? Even if that declaration of policy by the minister was not to the liking of hon. members, is it not a fact the minister has expressed the policy of the government because he is the spokesman with respect to these various matters, and according to the theory of cabinet solidarity he has spoken for the government. Has he not complied with the terms of this amendment? That is another point I should like to submit to hon. members for their serious consideration.
Of course when one considers that the amendment asks for a declaration of policy from the government, one could go a little further. After all the government, by the constitution, are the advisers of Her Majesty. They are the ones who are supposed to propose policy. Can we, by an amendment or by a decision of this house, force the government to declare their policy if they do not wish to do so? I have in my hand here a treatise on parliament by C. Ilbert who was a Clerk of the House of Commons in England and the author of several books. On page 111 of this particular book he says, under the title "administration":
Parliament does not govern. Parliamentary government does not mean government by parliament. Once, and once only, in the course of English history has the House of Commons attempted to administer the affairs of the country through executive committees, and the precedent by the long parliament has not been followed.
What is done by parliament, and especially by the House of Commons, is in the first place to secure that the King's ministers, who control and are responsible for the executive government of the country, shall represent and have the confidence of the party, or combination of parties, which commands a majority in the house, and in the next place to control the action of those ministers by means of questions and criticisms.
Now, is this a criticism? The amendment asks that the government declare a policy immediately. I submit these observations for the benefit of hon. members. Of course if the amendment is not in order, then the subamendment is not in order either.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a subamendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, at the moment that is what we are considering. It is a subamendment. Considering that now the original question must be laid aside for the time

being, the amendment so to speak becomes a distinctive motion. The amendment to the amendment spells out a policy. The amendment was to the effect that the government should state its policy immediately. I consider that the policy has already been stated. Then the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) in his subamendment spells out what the policy should be. He says:
. . . that the government should give consideration to including in such policy the provision of a floor price to the wheat producers of Canada at levels not less than the Canadian wheat board selling price, basis Fort William-Port Arthur on Friday, June 4, 1954.
Aside from other considerations if this amendment were in order, and if it were carried by the house, would it not have the effect of giving a direct order to make a public expenditure? On this point I refer hon. members to previous rulings which I ask them to consider. There is the ruling of Mr. Speaker Black on May 24, 1932, page 515 of the Journals; another by Mr. Speaker Glen on March 29,	1943, page 213 of
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus the Journals; another one by the same Speaker on March 30, 1943, page 221.
As I said a moment ago, I am not making a ruling at this moment but I am asking hon. members to seriously consider the observations I have made. When we resume the discussion of these amendments, we can hear the views of hon. members. If I am wrong in my contention, I can take into consideration the remarks that might be made by experienced hon. members of the house, and I would be very pleased to revise what I would otherwise consider to be perhaps a quite sound ruling.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: We shall take the third reading tomorrow; then the Department of Trade and Commerce, national revenue, secretary of state, fisheries, mines and technical surveys, and defence production.


[Stage Direction]
It being ten minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
83276-364J
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 10, 1954