[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. Last Friday, at page 3378 of Hansard, the authenticity of my interpretation of holy writ was challenged by one of my good friends from Toronto. I was supported by the book, sir, the bible on which you were brought up. I went home and got my own Gaelic bible, and I am going to put the quotation on record. I have a precedent for doing this, because John Tolmie-
Mr. MacKINNON:: He was my uncle.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: -did this about forty years ago, in the Gaelic language as used in that part of the country from which my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) comes. This is what it says in Genesis, chapter 27, part of verse 22:
Is e 'n guth guth Iacoib, ach is iad na lamhan lamhan Esau.
The translation, which I give to a long suffering Hansard, is:
The voice is the voice of Jacob, but the hands are the hands of Esau.
Questions


Mr. GRAYDON:: Mr. Speaker, does this mean that this house is becoming trilingual?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It should be.


Mr. SPEAKER:: According to the rules the right hon. minister should not try to introduce a third language in the house.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (Cochrane) moved that the third report of the standing committee on external affairs, presented to the house on Friday, May 23, be now concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 254, to amend the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act, 1933.
Gordon Graydon: Would the minister
explain the purpose of the bill?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: The object of this bill is to amend the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act so as to give the federal authority jurisdiction over rates of pay, hours of work and certain working conditions of the employees of the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways. As the matter now stands the provinces, under property and civil rights, have passed their own legislation, and the result is that the collective agreements which have been entered into between the railways and their employees have not uniform application in all parts of the country. The purpose of this legislation is to occupy the field in so far as labour relations of railway workers are concerned.


Mr. GRAA DON:: With the consent of the provinces?


Lionel Chevrier: It is not necessary.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. STANFIELD:: 1.	How many people were employed at Debert depot by war assets corporation for each of the twelve months prior to May I, 1947?

2.	What was the total (a) salaries and wages; (lb) travelling and living expenses, paid to all employees at said Debert depot in each of the twelve months prior to May 1, 1947 ?
3.	\\ hat was the total value of material sold in each of the twelve months prior to May 1, 1947 by war assets corporation from their Debert depot?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1 and 2. At War Assets Corporation's warehouse No. 41, Debert, Nova Scotia:
Number Salaries and
Month	employed wages		Expenses
1946			
Mav 	. SI	8 10,064 95	June 	. 87	10,823 11	July 	. 89	12,141 24	August ...	. 96	11,477 38	September	. 100	11,254 75	October ..	. 126	15.100 05	S 335 25November.	. 129	14,787 34	424 75December.	. 130	19,533 60	608 251947	January ..	. 149	15,470 27	417 00February .	. 144	18,806 97	348 50March ...	. 126	19,913 07	440 25April ....	. 113	12,616 73	345 00Note.-No	living	$171,989 46 expenses are	82,919 00 incurred by
the corporation in connection with the operation of this warehouse. Expenses shown above consist of general operating and local transportation disbursements.
3.	Material is moved out of a War Assets Corporation warehouse for delivery or release to the purchaser, on receipt of the release copy of a sales order from the branch office of the corporation which made the sale. This copy of the sales order does not indicate the sale price. In order therefore to answer this part of the question, it would be necessary to have every branch across Canada report on the sales made from the Debert warehouse during the last 12 months. In view of the large volume of work involved, no answer to this part of the question has been prepared.


INCOMES OF CANADIANS IN VARIOUS BRACKETS
Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	During each of the last ten years for which complete returns are available, how many persons in Canada received incomes of (a) less than $2,000 per year; (b) $2,000 to $5,000 per year;
(c)	$5,000 to $10,000 per year; (d) $10,000 to $20,000 per year; (e) $20,000 to $50,000 per year; (f) $50,000 to $100,000 per year; (g) $100,000 to $200,000 per year; (h) over $200,000 per year?

Questions
2.	What were the gross incomes reported in each of the above brackets?


Mr. McCANN:: The Department of
National Revenue can reply to questions on personal incomes only in so far as taxpayers are concerned. Therefore the tables given below relate only to taxpayers and not to all persons in Canada as requested. Complete figures by calendar years are available only for the years 1942 and 1941. The department has made estimates for the years 1944, 1945 and 1946 and the figures are included here although they will not be the final official figures for the years concerned. The income classes have been altered to conform to the classes adopted in compiling the original statistics. Reduction of the exemption levels in 1942 had the automatic effect of substantially increasing the number of taxpayers in the two lowest income groups as compared with 1941. The exemptions have been unchanged from 1942 to 1946. Subject to these comments, the requested information is contained in the following tables:
1941-Final
Income	Number of	GrossClass	Taxpayers	Income (000)Below	-	$ 1,000	165,475	$142,227$ 1,000	-	2,000	368,862	544,3062,000	-	3,000	198,252	474,2753,000	-	4,000	65,421	223,4204,000	-	5,000	26,626	118,4365,000	-	6,000	13,849	75.3256.000	-	7.000	8,382	54,0027,000	-	8,000	5,586	41,6848,000	-	9,000	3,693	31.2989,000	-	10,000	2,815	26.83110,000	-	15,000	6,897	82,64115,000	-	20,000	2,417	41.45020,000	-	25.000	1.170	25.98525,000	-	50,000	1,533	51,01650,000	-	100,000	| 506	47,264Over	100,000	1942-	FinaJIncome	Number of	GrossClass	Taxpayers	Income (000)Below	-	$ 1,000	313,913	$258,754$ 1,000	-	2.000	913,944	1,378,0432,000	-	3,000	379,101	896.4403.000	-	4,000	87,556	297.5864,600	-	5,000	31,944	141,7425,000	-	6,000	16.279	88,3186,000	-	7,000	9.708	62,6147,000	-	8,000	6,646	49,5178,000	-	9,000	4,402	37,1069,000	-	10,000	3.399	32,39310.000	-	15,000	8,023	96,15415,000	-	20,000	2,774	47,67720,000	-	25,000	1,303	28.87125,000	-	50,000	1,694	56.30050,000	-	100,000	453	29,082Over	-	100.000	105	22,626
1944-Estimate
Income	N umber of	GrossClass	Taxpayers	Income (000)
Betlow 

$ 1,000.	.. 385,000 $	318,000$ 1,000 -	2,000.	.. 1,290,000	1,962,0002,000 -	3,000.	... 595,000	1,404,0003,000 -	4,000.	... 80,000	271,0004,000 -	5,000.	... 35,000	155,0005,000 -	6,000.	... 19,000	103,0006,000 -	7,000.	... 11,600	74,0007,000 -	8,000.	... 8,200	61,0008,000 -	9,000.	... 5,400	46,0009,000 -	10,000.	... 4,000	38,00010,000 -	15,000.	... 9,000	107,00015,000 -	20,000.	... 3,400	58,00020,000 -	25,000.	... 1,500	34,00025,000 -	50,000.	... 2,250	78,00050,000 -	100,000.	... 500	35,000Over -	100,000.	... 150	23,000
1945-Estimate
Income	Number of	Gross
Class	Taxpayers Income
		(000)
Below - $ 1,000..	.. 425,300	$ 349,621$ 1,000 - 2,000..	.. 1,252,000	1,877,9382,000 - 3,000..	.. 478,200	1,128,9163,000 - 4,000..	.. 107,600	364,6884,000 - 5,000..	.. 36,400	161,3835,000 - 6,000.	.. 19,200	104,2186,000 - 7,000.	.. 11,800	76,0527,000 - 8,000.	.. 8,000	59,5758,000 - 9,000.	.. 5,300	44,5949,000 - 10,000.	. . 4,200	39,93010,000 - 15,000.	.. 9,200	110,50415,000 - 20,000.	.. 3,400	58,50820,000 - 25,000.	.. 1,600	35,50725,000 - 50,000.	.. 2,140	71,54850,000 - 100,000.	.. 500	32,069Over - 100,000.	.. 160	27,860
1946-Estimate
Income	Number of	GrossClass	Taxpayers	Income (000)Below -	$ 1,000.	.. 443,000	$ 365,501$ 1,000 -	2,000.	.. 1.314,050	1,976,3302,000 -	3,000.	.. 542,825	1,284,0443,000 -	4,000.	.. . 124,450	423,3834.000 -	5,000.	.. 45,740	202,9195,000 -	6,000.	.. 23,235	126,2846.000 -	7,000.	... 13,895	89,6247,000 -	8,000.	... 9.500	70,7788.000 -	9,000.	... 6,320	53,4069,000 -	10,000.	... 4,820	45,79110,000 -	15.000.	... 10,305	118,50915,000 -	20.000.	... 3,535	60,71520,000 -	25,000.	... 1,650	36,63125.000 -	50,000.	... 1,900	62,70050,000 -	100,000.	... 475	30,875Over -	100,000.	... 109	
Questions


WAR ASSETS-SEWING MACHINES
Mr. LENNARD:: 4.	Have requests been made to War Assets Corporation, Toronto area, for sewing machines?
2.	If so, what are the names and addresses of firms, or persons requesting same in the order in which they have been received?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	Yes.
2.
Name-Address-Date of Inquiry
Cpl. Oliver, Rockcliffe, Ont., October 9, 1946.
Monarch Knitting Company Limited, St. Thomas, Ont,, October 29, 1946.
War Assets Corporation, Valleyfield, P.Q., December, 12, 1946.
Eldorado Mining & Refining (1944) Limited, Port Hope, Ont., March 1, 1947.
H & H Auto Top, Toronto, Ont,, March 10, 1947.
Weston Aircraft, Oshawa, Ont., March 14, 1947.
Gordon Sewing Machine Company, Toronto, Ont., March 28, 1947.
Department of Veterans Affairs, London, Ont., April 3, 1947.
Samuel & Son, Toronto, Ont., April 19, 1947.
Polymer Corporation Limited, Sarnia, Ont., May 5. 1947.
F. E. Lennard, M.P., Dundas, Ont., May 6, 1947.


RADIO BROADCASTING-LICENCES-HENRI DE MOOR
Mr. GAGNON:: 1.	Has Mr. Henri de Moor, superintendent of the sale of radio licences for Chicoutimi, resigned?
2.	If so (a) when; (b) for what reason; (c) by whom was he replaced; (d) when was he replaced; (e) who recommended such appointment?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) February 1947.
(b)	Unknown.
(c)	J. H. Gaudreault.
(d)	April 1 1947.
(e)	The Minister of Reconstruction and Supply.


Mrs. STRUM:: What expenditure was incurred by the Department of National Health and Welfare in convening a cancer conference on January 27 and 28, 1947?


Mr. MARTIN:: $582, which included cost of reporting, preparation of minutes, telephones, telegrams, postage, and luncheon for delegates.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. CASTLEDEN:: 1.	From what countries have immigrants been admitted to Canada from September 30, 1945 to April 15, 1947?
2.	How many immigrants were admitted to Canada from each of these countries during that period?


George James McIlraith: Immigration to Canada, showing country of last permanent residence, from September 30,
1945, to March 3.1, 4947.
Africa (Br.)	 137
Africa (Not Br.)	 87
Australia	 285
Austria	 159
Belgium	 932
Bermuda	   71
Bulgaria	 1
Central America	 25
China	 190
Czechoslovakia	 185
Denmark	 48
Eire	 526
England	 45,147
Estonia	 9
Finland	 17
France	 436
Germany	 592
Greece	 66
Holland	 2,503
Hungary	 31
India	 172
Ireland (Northern)	 774
Italy	 76
Japan	   24
Yugoslavia	 21
Latvia	 3
Lesser British Isles	 45
Lithuania	 3
Mexico	 54
Newfoundland	 4,041
New Zealand	 124
Norway	 235
Palestine	 24
Poland	 648
Portugal	 52
Roumania	 8
Russia	 15
St. Pierre and Miquelon	 12
Scotland	 8,763
South America	 188
Spain	 69
'Sweden	 33
Switzerland	  32
Syria	 5
United States	 15,430
Wales	 1,191
West Indies (Br.)	 516
West Indies (Not Br.)	 57
Other countries	 89
Total	 84,151


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: How many applications have been received by the immigration branch since 'September 30, 1945 _ to March 31, 1947 for the admission of relatives of Canadians to Canada from Europe?


George James McIlraith: The branch records are kept in such a way that the information asked for in this question can be obtained only by

Questions
checking the file of each applicant for immigration to Canada. In view of the amount of work and expense this involves I wonder if the hon. member would agree to drop the question.
Question dropped.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD-&quot;CANADA CARRIES ON&quot;
Mr. FRASER:: What was the total amount other than revenues received by the national film board for sale of prints of films made in Canada of "Canada Carries On" (a) sales made to Canadian purchasers; (lb) sales made to foreign purchasers?


Mr. McCANN:: 1. (a) 1945, $12,213.52; 1946, $6,850.93.
(b) 1945, $427.36; 1946, $1,467.43.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
[Stage Direction]
.	NIAGARA"
Mr. LOW:: 1.	Was the national film board, a government organization, commissioned by the J. Arthur Rank, private organization, to assist in making the film "The Boy Who 'Stopped Niagara?"
2.	If so, on whose authority and on what
terms?	.
3.	Has the national film board been commissioned to do certain work including art work for use in connection with the Marian congress?
4.	If so, on whose authority and on what terms?
5.	Is the national film board to be used 'by the government to compete against private enterprise?


Mr. McCANN:: 1.	Yes. The national film board was commissioned by the children's film department of Gaumont British Instructional Films to produce the film.
2.	The film was commissioned on the authority of the government film commissioner and the national film board, as it was projected originally for the national film board's own production programme. The script together with an estimate of cost was shown to and approved by Gaumont British Instructional, a non-profit organization, advised by the national advisory council on children's films for Great Britain and associated with the Rank Theatrical Enterprises. The film was then produced independently by the national film board. Gaumont British Instructional was invoiced for the production cost, which has been paid.
3.	Yes.
4. On authority of the government film commissioner, in answer to a request made by Mr. Jacques Auger representing La Direction du Congres Marial.
5.	No.


FAMILY ALLOWANCES-SUSPENSIONS FOR MISUSE
Mr. BREITHAUPT:: ll. In view of the numerous press and radio reports regarding recipients of family allowance cheques misspending such money, has the Minister of National Health and Welfare made any detailed enquiries in this respect?
2. If so, what were the findings and what action is being taken?


Mr. MARTIN:: 1.	Reports of misuse of family allowances received from all quarters are investigated in the regional offices.
2.	Following the investigation, if a report
is found to be justified, the account is immediately suspended. Since January 1st 1947 the following number of accounts have been suspended on account of misuse of family allowances:	January, 119; February, 23;
March, 39; April, 33.


PUBLIC SERVICE-WAR DUTIES SUPPLEMENTS
Mr. LOCKHART:: 1.	What are the names of temporary or permanent civil servants who did not receive war duties supplements in (a) Department of Mines and Resources; (b) Department of Transport; (e) National Film Board?
2.	Who recommended payment of war duties supplements ?
3.	What is the reason why war duties supplements were not paid to all employees in these departments?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I speak of course only for the Department of Transport, but. what I say will apply, I believe, to other departments. In the first place in the Department of Transport there are almost 8.000 employees. Of this number 721 have received war duties supplements. This would mean that an answer to the first part of the question would require the compilation of names of temporary and permanent civil servants with respect to over 6.000 employees in this one department. The information I have from the deputy minister is to the effect that even by assigning one or two clerks to this work, it would take almost two months to obtain the information. In view of these facts perhaps the hon. member would consent to dropping that part of the question.
As to the second part of the question. I would say that the payment of war duties supplements is recommended by the head of the department.
As to the third part the answer is that payment of war duties supplements varies, depending upon the nature of the war services performed by the employees. In many instances there were employees who in these
Questions

departments, because of their purely civilian duties, were not entitled to war supplements.
Would the hon. member consent to dropping the question?


Gordon Graydon: Since the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lockhart) is not in his seat at the moment, perhaps the matter could stand until he returns.
Question stands.


EXPORT CREDITS INSURANCE ACT AND UNITED KINGDOM FINANCIAL AGREEMENT ACT, 1946
Mr. COCKERAM:: What amounts authorized as loans or credits to each country under the authority of the Export Credits Insurance Act and the United Kingdom Financial Agreement Act of 1946 have been expended or contracted for to date?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 

QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. CAOUETTE:: 1.	What province of Quebec barristers have received fees from the federal government, or from any of the boards thereof, since January 1, 1936?
2.	What amounts were paid to each of the said barristers, in what year or years, and for what services?


GRANTS FOR RESEARCH
Mrs. STRUM:: 1. How many persons applied for national research council grants in (a)	1945-1946;	(b)
1946-1947; (c) what were the amounts applied for in these respective years?

2.	How many applications for such grants were approved in (a) 1945-1946? (b) 1946J1947; (c) what were the actual amounts received in these respective years?
3.	How much money was apportioned for research in 1945-1946, 1946-4947 in the following fields (a) medicine; (b) physical sciences; (c) _ forestry; (d) fisheries; (e) agriculture?
4.	What was the total amount of money granted for research in 1945-1946, and 1946-1947 respectively in the following fields (a) medicine; (b) physical sciences; (c) forestry; (d) fisheries; (e) agriculture?
5.	Has the national research council given any grants for military research?
6.	If so, how much did these grants amount to?



CIVIL SERVICE-VETERANS' PREFERENCE

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: How many veterans of the first great war entitled to veterans' preference and who entered the government service on or after July 19, 4927, are recognized as being permanent and subject to the provisions of the Civil Service Superannuation Act?



HOUSING-VETERANS    MCDONALD SUBDIVISION, NEAR WELLAND, ONT.

Mr. LOCKHART:: 1.	How many wartime houses have been erected under YU.A. in the McDonald subdivision, near Welland, Ontario?
2.	What are the names of the veterans occupying each of these houses?
3.	What is the estimated value of each of the houses?
4.	How long have these houses been occupied?
5.	Are more houses to be erected in this subdivision?
6.	If not, for what reason?
7.	What was the cost per acre of the land in this subdivision?
8.	Was pure water available to veterans when they were permitted to occupy these houses?
9.	If not, what has been their source of water supply (a) for drinking purposes; (b) for general use?
10.	What is the cost of the well drilled on this property, including the service piping to each house?
11.	What water rates will be charged to each veteran ?
12.	When will the grading of these lands be completed?
13.	What deposit has been paid by each of the veterans occupying these houses?
14.	Where will contracts be available to these veterans ?
15.	Have the amounts of these contracts been computed yet?
16.	If so, what will be the contract price to each veteran?



ADVERTISING-&quot;lA FRONTIERE&quot; AND &quot;ROUYN NORANDA PRESS&quot;

Mr. CAOUETTE:: 1.	Have any amounts been paid by the government since 1939 to La Frontiere and the Rouyn Noranda Press, of Rouyn, for advertising?
2.	If so, what amounts to each?

Inquiries oj the Ministry



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Labour now answer my question with respect to Polish girls?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: In reply to a question asked last week by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) as to girls at present located in displaced persons camps in Europe being brought to Canada by the Dionne Spinning Mills of St. George, Beauce, Quebec, I would advise that the details of the arrangement are set out in order in council P.C. 1193.
With reference to the specific contracts which will be entered into by the girls with the Dionne Spinning Mills, they will provide for rates of wages no less favourable than those required by the provincial laws of Quebec.
My information is that it is the intention of the company to pay these girls the same rates of wages which prevail for other labour in the mill, and an order for return has been tabled which shows, according to reports to the Department of Labour, that no girls are employed at less than 25 cents an hour and that the average rate is 35 cents per hour. However, later information on the question of wages has been received in a telegram from Paul Baillargeon, attorney for the Dionne Spinning Mills, dated May 22, reading as follows:
Answering your telegram: Taken from one of our recent payrolls girl machine operators minimum for experienced beginner is twenty-five cents per hour paid for forty-eight hours weekly but only work forty-six. This equals approximately twenty-six cents per hour minimum. This is increased to thirty cents per hour after one month. After that they are paid according to what they produce. Our experienced girls earn up to a maximum of sixty cents per hour plus three per cent. They also receive two per cent of their weekly earnings for vacation pay. They receive group sick benefit and death insurance five hundred dollars for females. We have only two married women.
In further explanation I quote from Mr. Dionne's letter to my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Resources:
These girls will take their headquarters at the convent which is situated 500 feet from the mill and is under the direction of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd.
I will pay the transportation of these girls from their homes to Canada. I will see that
these girls or widows are healthy morally and physically. I will comply with the rules and regulations of the Canadian government.
I will make a contract with these girls to refund me their transportation charges at about 25 per cent of what they will earn weekly in my plant. I will pay these girls, when they begin to work, according to the ordinance No. 5 regulating the salaries and conditions of work of textile industries in the province of Quebec.
That is the end of the telegram.
In addition, the company has undertaken to return the girls to point of origin if the arrangement is not mutually satisfactory.
I now table copy of P.C. 1193 dated April 1, 1947, and other documents pertaining to this matter.
I thought my hon. friend1 would like to see the whole file.


Major James William Coldwell: Is the arrangement in any respect under the supervision of or in conjunction with the intergovernmental committee on refugees?


Humphrey Mitchell: Speaking from memory, I do not think so. My understanding is that these girls are being obtained from displaced persons camps in the American and British sections of Germany.


Major James William Coldwell: Does this not contravene parliament's own legislation as contained in chapter 109 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, particularly section 2 thereof, which deals with alien contract labour?


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know. At the moment conversations are going on, and have gone on, between myself and the Minister of Mines and Resources in connection with joint applications from trade unions and employers to bring people from these displaced persons camps to Canada. Speaking now as an individual, I think that the Canadian people have some responsibility in this regard. With all measures of this nature you have more or less to move easily and carefully into the policy. I could not say whether it does conflict.


Major James William Coldwell: That is my point. Has the minister looked into this particular point? I read the act carefully this morning and section 2 certainly prohibits this kind of importation of labour. I realize that there are other sections which may give the government-authority, but it seems to me that that was not the intention of parliament when the act was passed. I am not criticizing the relief of displaced persons, but I want to see that they are brought here under proper conditions and with the proper authority of parliament.


Mr. SINNOTT:: Have you any objection to these people coming to Canada?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Gordon Graydon: May I ask one supplementary question on that point? Has the government received any applications from other employers of labour along the same lines as that of Mr. Dionne?


Humphrey Mitchell: The answer is yes. FISHERIES PRICES SUPPORT



QUESTION AS TO PROCLAMATION OF OPERATIVE SECTIONS OF ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. BAKER (Shelbume-Yarmouth-Clare):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries in connection with a matter of importance to the fishermen of the maritime provinces. Can the minister indicate to the house when the fisheries prices support board will be set up to administer the Fisheries Prices Support Act, 1944?


Hon. H. F. G. BRIDGES (Minister of Fisheries):: In reply to the question of the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare I would advise him that it so happens that at the moment the deputy minister of this department is in Geneva attending, at the request of the fishing industry, the international trade and tariff conference. After he returns to Canada, which I expect will be early in June, it is my intention to make some announcement as to when the operative sections of the Fisheries Prices Support Act, 1944, will be proclaimed.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES

[Stage Direction]
LOSS OF TRANSPORT PLANE ON PACIFIC COAST On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. B. McKAY (Weyburn):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, copy of which I have sent to him, and in his absence I would ask his parliamentary assistant to take note of the question. Has the search for the T.C.A. plane lost on April 29 on the Pacific coast been abandoned? When will the investigation into the cause of the loss be commenced, and what will be the composition of the investigating body? Have any claims for damages been filed?


George James McIlraith: If the hon. member will allow his question to stand as notice, it will be answered in a day or two.



HUMAN RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, May 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie that the house go into committee on a resolution for the appointment of a joint committee of both houses of parliament to consider the question of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, in many respects I believe that this debate on a resolution to set up a special parliamentary committee to study human rights and fundamental freedoms is one of the most important debates that we shall take part in during the present session. It is one debate wherein we are not vying with each other in a discussion over the cost of this or that commodity or involving ourselves in a discussion of the pros and cons of some expenditure. To my mind it involves the discussion of the fundamental philosophy of our democratic way of life as against the philosophy of totalitarian slavery.
The terms of the resolution indicate that a good deal of thought has been put into it. I should like to read the resolution, and for the sake of brevity I will omit the names of the members of the joint committee. The resolution reads:
That a joint committee of both houses of parliament be appointed to consider the question of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the manner in which those obligations accepted by all members of the united nations may best be implemented;
And, in particular, in the light of the provisions contained in the charter of the united nations, and the establishment by the economic and social council thereof of a commission on human rights, what is the legal and constitutional situation in Canada with respect to such rights, and what steps, if any, it would be advisable to take or to recommend for the purpose of preserving in Canada respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms;
It is a little difficult for me to detect all that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) may have had in mind when he worded that lesolution. I cannot conceive why in the whole matter of the united nations organization, with its charter and many complicated relationships, both economic and educational and commercial, and in matters of world justice and what have you, this one matter of human rights and fundamental freedoms should be singled out as being so important as to warrant the appointment of a special parliamentary committee to investigate, discuss and make recommendations.

Human Rights
As we are all aware, 1867 was the year of confederation, but Canada was a country and a nation long before that. It strikes me that Canadian citizens have always enjoyed what we regard as human rights and fundamental freedoms. Why is it necessary now, so many years after confederation, after so many years of life in a democracy, that we should begin to turn our attention to a delineation of these human rights and fundamental freedoms?
I have taken an intense interest in the speeches which have been made so far in this debate. Some of them have been filled with exceptionally good advice, but there have been some that I have not been able fully to understand. The other day I listened with a good deal of interest, as I usually do, to the able speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart), but there were one or two things that I did not quite understand, indeed which appeared to me to be just a little self-contradictory. At page 3160 of Hansard I read, for instance, this paragraph:
Six hundred years ago they fought in Scotland against the foreign oppressor. They fought for the right of nationhood, and today there is still that same desire in the world for the right to self-determination.
I agree with that; I do most profoundly agree with the speaker on that point. But it does seem to me that that fundamental principle has already been done away with in some of our international gatherings. A few years ago we were all enamoured of a highly important and precious document known as the Atlantic charter. It had been signed by some of the big men of the earth. So far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic charter has become a scrap of paper, for in the negotiations carried on since the Atlantic charter was signed there has been little regard in many instances to giving the right of selfdetermination to some of the smaller nations.
The other day I read in the Toronto Star- I do read the Toronto Star occasionally-a British United Press dispatch from London, headed "Turks say U.S. aid is annoying Soviet," and the article reads:
The Turkish newspaper Aksam, which frequently reflects official opinion, said in an editorial broadcast by the Ankara radio today the U.S. aid programme has increased Russia's "hostile sentiments" toward Turkey.
The newspaper said Soviet policy would have to change if Soviet-Turkish relations were to improve.
"There is nothing we can do to renew the ties of friendship that we desire to have with Russia, for the conditions appear to be clear-cut," Aksam, said, outlining the conditions as:
"We have to give up the straits and Istanbul. We are to act an an enemy toward Great Britain and the United States. We are to set up a communist government, imported wholesale
from Russia. And nothing less than the whole thing will do, for if one single condition is turned down, Russia won't even look our way."
That is a very important press dispatch, for the reason that it does away completely with the right of small nations to their national self-determination. I do not know what the attitude of the hon. member for Winnipeg North would be towards the recent United States loan to Turkey, but I do know that the expressions in some circles from those holding socialist views are not very happy ones. Yet in this dispatch, which reflects very largely official opinion, I have read the attitude taken by Turkey.
Much has been said during recent months as to the necessity for the nations of the world giving up some of their national sovereignty. I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that I have never been able to fathom just what these advocates mean, because when rve ask them what part of our national sovereignty we are to give up, they never seem to know just what; they never seem to have an answer. While on this point I might mention our Canadian ambassador to Washington, who the other day in a speech bodly asserted that some of the nations would have to give up some of their national sovereignty. I might ask, Mr. Speaker, whether Mr. L. B. Pearson, our ambassador at Washington, was reflecting our official opinion in Canada, and if he was, who gave him authority to make that statement that we had to give up some of our national sovereignty? The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) is in his seat, and he can answer that if he wishes. I do say this, that diplomats as a rule are very careful about breaking into print, and I should like to know who gave the right to Mr. Pearson to make that statement, and whether it does reflect official opinion in this country. Furthermore, if it does reflect official opinion, I say that this parliament has a right to know from the present administration what part of our national sovereignty we must surrender. So far, while in past years this phraseology has been shouted from the housetops, we have not yet heard what part of our national sovereignty we must surrender.
The other day at a dinner given by the health league I heard one of Canada's eminent scientists speak on the atom bomb. His message was most interesting and deserved a good deal of commendation. I wish that that message might be put into print and circulated throughout Canada. But this was the part to which I took exception. Somehow or other before he finished-and I said to myself as he was coming to this point, "Ah, here it is; I thought so!"-he said that we should have to surrender some of our national
Human Rights

sovereignty. I do not know why he had to conclude on that note. I often think of the little phrase in scripture when our Lord was before Pilate and Pilate said something to him. Our Lord turned to him and said: "Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee?" I just wonder how many of these men in important positions speak the words of truth and soberness as their own original thoughts, or whether somebody whispers something in their ear and as a result they are reflecting what they may think is a popular phrase, something that is in the air.
Here we are in this parliament-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On a point of order, may I inform my hon. friend that the quotation I gave today was derived from a hundred different languages.


Ernest George Hansell: Evidently the Minister
of Veterans Affairs was engrossed in something else, because I was not referring to what the minister said at all. I did not have him in mind. The only thing I regret is that I am not making myself interesting enough for him to listen. However, I often wonder what good it is anyway. It does not make any difference how forceful your arguments are; when the vote is taken the government always wins. We win the argument and the government wins the vote. What I was talking about was the selling out or the surrendering of a part of our national sovereignty. Let the government state what it is we are surrendering. I am fearful that when these men in high places talk that way what they mean is that we are to surrender something of our human rights and fundamental freedoms.
I go further in my analysis of the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg North. He talks about racial discrimination. I am not going to labour the point, but at page 3161 of Hansard he says:
. . . where racial discrimination and intolerance of another's religious beliefs will be regarded as crimes against all mankind; where freedom of speech will be the inalienable right of every citizen.
That paragraph is self-contradictory, because if I am to be charged under the criminal code or if it is to be regarded as a criminal offence for me to criticize another religion, then I have not free speech. I say that I have the right to criticize another man's religion, and he has the same right to criticize mine. It is all very well to confine this to religion, but take political beliefs-I am not talking about party machine politics now, but we have come to the place in the world's history when there are political beliefs on a world-wide scale which are, I was going to say, almost tantamount to being a religion.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: They are.


Ernest George Hansell: They are to a very large extent. In the debate on the speech from the throne the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) referred to socialism as being a new way of life that was dawning upon society, or words to that effect. I take issue with him as to its being a new way of life; it is about as old as mankind itself. But that is neither here nor there. A way of life is certainly as potent as a religion. If it is to be thought a criminal act to criticize a philosophy of life, then I have not freedom of speech. You cannot have it both ways.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North, referring to Jehovah's Witnesses, said as reported at page 3162 of Hansard:
We w'ill deplore perhaps the way they say it; and yet I maintain as a democratic citizen that they are entitled to freedom to sav it so long as they do not violate the laws of the land. =
I agree with that, but how can you reconcile that with the former statement that it should be regarded as a criminal act to criticize another religion or sect? I should like that explained. I often w'onder what some people mean by racial discrimination. I have the greatest respect for all other races of man. The good Lord created everyone, but I wonder whether it is to be regarded as racial discrimination if a man in a restaurant displays a sign, "All white help". If fundamental freedom means anything it means that if a man wishes to display a sign of that kind he should be able to do so. Why not? He is in business. If he does not get business it is his own fault.
I wonder whether it would be right for a man to have a Japanese valet. Perhaps because the Japanese will not associate with his friends he would like to have a Japanese valet. What would happen if a Canadian or an English butler applied for the job? Is the employer to be considered subject to the criminal code if he says, "No, I am sorry, I cannot employ you; I want a Jap". If a man wants to employ a Jap I think he should have the right to do so. That is one of the fundamental freedoms we have.
I do not claim to know everything about socialism-


Mr. ZAPLITNY:: Hear, hear.
Mr. HA'NSELL: My hon. friend! aays "Hear, hear"; but I will pit my knowledge of socialism against his. I might tell my friend a little story. Some years ago I was charmed with socialism as it was portrayed in those days, and it is only by a little twist somewhere or other that I cannot explain why I am sitting in this group instead of sitting with the group to my right.

Human Rights


Mr. KNIGHT:: The hon. member got
twisted.


Ernest George Hansell: Perhaps so. It might be news to the hon. member to know that I was associated in a small way as a young lad with the 'hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Irvine) when he issued what was known as a nonpartisan paper. I used to be his cartoonist. Oh, I have caricatured my friend the hon. member for Cariboo pulling away a big bag of money from the capitalists. And he paid me good money for drawing these cartoons. On one occasion I wanted to get some information and I W'ondered to whom I should write. I believe I was in the constituency of Mr. Bennett, at the time, but I thought I had a bit of a socialist mind and I did not know many socialists. Finally I got in touch with a revered gentleman, Mr. Woodsworth. I wrote to him, and he answered my questions in a gentlemanly manner and sent me a few pamphlets. Those pamphlets were of course on Fabianism, and believe me, I read them through. I ate them up. I said to myself, "I believe they have something there". I studied them carefully and got other books on the subject, and I may say to you. Mr. Speaker, that I came within an ace of being a full-fledged socialist. I am glad however, very glad indeed, that certain fundamental truths began to dawn upon my mind; and today, all joking, all levity aside. I want to say this, though I know that some will disagree with me: As a world philosophy, basically, when the socialist talks of racial discrimination his eventual objective is the ruination of man by the mongrelization of the human race.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: You know better than that.


Ernest George Hansell: My hon. friend says I know better than that. It proves what I said a little while ago; he just does not know everything about socialism. My hon. friends have not made that claim, of course. I am speaking of socialism. I am not saying that the C.C.F. have made that claim. If they want to deny it, it is all right with me. I do not care. I am saying that is the big idea behind socialism.


Mr. JAQUES:: Communism.


Ernest George Hansell: That is the big idea in socialism. Let us remember this. God created every one of us, black or white, yellow, red, it does not matter what the colour of the skin may be; He created every individual with a soul. But the same God who created us said that He had fixed the bounds of men's habitation. We can tear those bounds down,
I suppose, because sometimes we dare to assume we are a little wiser than the omniscient.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: We seem to have learned a lot since the Lord created the earth.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not distinguish
between world socialism and world communism. Somebody said the other day that the C.C.F. were Liberals in a hurry. I would say the communists are socialists in a hurry. That is all there is to it as far as I am concerned. The member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) in this debate referred to the socialization of land. Our C.C.F. friends deny that. I do not say they are going to do that in Saskatchewan;
I am not so bold as to say that. As a matter of fact, I know the premier of Saskatchewan quite well. We sat in the house together. He is a fine gentleman. I do not think he would want to socialize the land, but I would say that fundamentally socialism dares to propose the socialization of land. I am dealing with the philosophy of socialism. I had a book put into my hands some time ago by a friend of mine. The title was "The Case for Socialism". The author is Fred Henderson. I may say my friend bought this book at one of the C.C.F. meetings. I have copied certain extracts in my own hand, and at page 22 I find the following:
It is this private ownership of land and capital which we socialists indict as the root cause of poverty. We challenge its justice and its right to exist or continue. We trace directly to it the ruin, the widespread misery and the destitution, of the mass of the people.
Then at page 24:
As for land ownership-well, it is hardly necessary nowadays to be a socialist to see that most Liberals and many orthodox politicians admit, that there is, and that there can be, no moral or just title whatever to the private ownership of land.
I can read more.


Mr. REID:: That is the philosophy of Great Britain.


Ernest George Hansell: At page 31 of the same book I read:
Let there be no mistake about it. Socialism, I repeat, is an attack upon the institution of private property in land and capital. We socialists advocate the expropriation of the landed and capitalist class;
And on page 32:
I want you to be perfectly clear about this and not to attempt to shirk the full consequence of the socialist proposal. Do not, for example, let us deceive ourselves into thinking that we can get around this accusation about confiscation and robbery by talking about some form of compensation to the persons whom we propose
Human Rights

to expropriate. If the nation gave them compensation, in the sense of giving them the equivalent of what it is proposed to take from them, we should fail in our purpose.
Fundamentally, I began to learn some of these things as I read some of the books which were advocated by socialist-minded people.


John Horne Blackmore: That helped you to get untwisted.


Ernest George Hansell: I am not going to detain the house. All I wish to say is this. I do not know whether all members of this committee have the same conception of what human rights and fundamental freedoms are, but I say that the world is built upon law and order. The universe is built upon law and order, and it behooves all people to be subject to law, order and good government. There is a liberty which does not recognize authority, and that sort of liberty becomes licence. I have a strong feeling that the conception of human rights and fundamental freedoms of some members of the committee is going to be almost diametrically opposed to the conception of human rights and fundamental freedoms of other men on that committee.
Our socialists-let me interject this here- every once in a while take a crack at private enterprise. I am going to say that private enterprise is nothing more or less than the exercise by individuals of their human rights and fundamental freedoms.


John Horne Blackmore: The right to own property.


Ernest George Hansell: When I say that, I do not modify my statement. I only point out that there are abuses in private enterprise, but it is not private enterprise that is at fault but the abuses, and we have to correct those abuses. My hon. friends laugh a little, giggle a little, but that does not concern me. I say that if "fundamental freedoms and human rights" means anything it means that a man has the right to do business with anyone who will do business with him. If that is private enterprise, all right.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I see that your eye is on the clock as well as on me, so I take it my time is pretty well gone. I close with a quotation from Major C. H. Douglas, whom some of us claim to be one of the greatest minds in the world today. He says:
In our anxiety to make a world safe for democracy it is a matter of real urgency that we do not tip out the baby with the bath water, and, by discarding too soon what is clearly an agency which can be made to operate both ways, make democracy even more unsafe for the individual than it is at present.

I close on that note. I say what we have to do in this committee is guard the human rights and fundamental freedoms that Canada has enjoyed ever since confederation. Nothing has changed in Canada, except that we have had the infiltration of a type of philosophy that would prepare our minds and soften us up for the acceptance of something that is diabolically evil.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker-


James Horace King: I understand that the minister will close the debate if he speaks now.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I just want to thank all parties and all hon. members who have spoken for their splendid contributions to this debate, which has been kept on a very high plane indeed. The committee will be set up as soon as possible. It is the desire of the government that my distinguished colleague the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) shall be chairman of the committee, subject of course to the wish and will of the committee itself. In that capacity I know he will render his usual efficient and distinguished service.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved the second reading of Bill No. 20, to amend the Publication of Statutes Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is fully explained in the explanatory note published with the bill itself. Under the act which determines the distribution to be made of the Canadian statutes it was provided that copies would be supplied to the governor general to be transmitted to one of the principal secretaries of state of His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom for consideration by the government of the United Kingdom, to the end that they be disallowed or allowed to operate, and also that certain bills might be reserved by the governor general for His Majesty's pleasure. In the conference of 1926, when the Balfour declaration was made, the question arose as to what would be the position with respect to the possible disallowance of dominion legislation by His Majesty on the advice of his ministers of the United Kingdom, and what was the position that had been reached with respect to reserving bills for the consideration of His Majesty on the advice of his United Kingdom ministers.

Publication oj Statutes Act
The question was left to be dealt with by the conference of jurists which was set up to determine what were the practical steps to be adopted to carry out the principle embodied in the Balfour declaration. That commission met in 1929, and with respect to disallowance unanimously made this recommendation, which is to be found at page 16 of the report of the conference on the operation of dominion legislation and merchant shipping legislation, 1929:
The conference agree that the present constitutional position is that the power of disallowance can no longer be exercised in relation to dominion legislation. Accordingly, those dominions who possess the power to amend their constitutions in this respect can, by following the prescribed procedure, abolish the legal power of disallowance if they so desire. In the case of those dominions who do not possess this power, it would be in accordance with constitutional practice that, if so requested by the dominion^ concerned, the government of the United Kingdom should ask parliament to pass the necessary legislation.
In respect of reservation the recommendation, which is to be found at page 19 of the report, is as follows:
Applying the principles laid down in the imperial conference report of 1926, it is established first that the power of discretionary reservation if exercised at all can only be exercised in accordance with the constitutional practice in the dominion governing the exercise of the powers of the governor general; secondly, that His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom will not advise His Majesty the King to give the governor general any instructions to reserve bills presented to him for assent, and thirdly, as regards the signification of the king's pleasure concerning a reserved bill, that it would not be in accordance with constitutional practice for advice to be tendered to His Majesty by His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom against the view of the government of the dominion concerned.
That being the constitutional practice, on April 5,	1943, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made a declaration in the House of Commons in answer to a question submitted by the hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot) to this effect:
It has never been the practice for the clerk of the parliaments to send bound copies of the Statutes of Canada to the British Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. On certain occasions, namely during the years 1927 to 1942 inclusive, they have been sent by the Secretary of State for External Affairs who, since the arrangement concluded at the imperial conference in 1926, has been the recognized channel of communication between the government of Canada and the government of the United Kingdom.
The purpose of transmitting the Statutes of Canada in this manner has been to comply with the provisions of the Publication of Statutes Act and of section 56 of the British North America Act.
In 1942, in view of the complete obsolescence of the power of disallowance, and in order to bring the actual practice into conformity with the constitutional position the transmission from the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs was stopped.
That has been the situation in fact since that time. But there is still in the Publication of Statutes Act a provision which requires the Clerk of Parliaments to send bound copies to the Secretary of State for External Affairs for transmittance. Since 1942, instead of being transmitted to the United Kingdom, they have been sent to the library of the houses of parliament here. Nevertheless-
Gordon Graydon: These houses of parliament?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: To our Canadian houses of parliament. Nevertheless, though it was suggested that the Department of External Affairs tell the Clerk of Parliaments that he no longer need send them, it was felt that that would not be proper. There is a statute which places that duty upon the Clerk of Parliaments. And until parliament relieves him of that duty, it was felt that no one could give him instructions to disregard it. So the purpose of this bill is to amend the statutes respecting the publication of statutes, and thus relieve the Clerk of Parliaments of the obligation placed upon him by parliament, which is now without any practical object.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 20, letter E of the senate, is one which has caused me considerable concern, and one about which the house should have some clarification as soon as possible. The debates in another place, to which I am not permitted to refer in detail, consisted largely in an explanation of the bill itself by its sponsor. Little or no debate took place there, and for that reason we have no explanations before us by those in the senior chamber with respect to points which might normally be raised in the house. What was said in introduction by the hon. senator in the other place w7as much the same as has been said today by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent).
Looking through the bill and the various statutes connected with it I find there are a number of matters concerning which I should like to have some explanation when the bill reaches committee of the whole. First of all it should be made clear that the Publication of Statutes Act, which is chapter 2 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, is one which deals with the subject matter indicated by its title. Today we are not interested in the

Publication of Statutes Act

repeal of the whole statute which was passed in 1925 by the parliament of Canada, but we are directing our attention to those parts of the statute which have to do with the publication of our statutes in the United Kingdom. If I may say so, it seems to me we cannot separate that part of the Publication of Statutes Act from the British North America Act itself.
Let me bring to the attention of the house the two sections of the British North America Act which is seems to me bear directly on this bill. Chapter 56 of the British North America Act states:
Where the governor general assents to a bill in the queen's name, he shall by the first convenient opportunity send an authentic copy of the act to one of Her Majesty's principal secretaries of state, and if the queen in council within two years after receipt thereof by the Secretary of State thinks fit to disallow the act, such disallowance (with a certificate of the secretary of the day on which the act was received by him) being signified by the governor general, by speech or message to each of the houses of parliament or by proclamation, shall annul the act from and after the day of such signification.
And section 56 states:
A bill reserved for the signification of the queen's pleasure shall not have any force unless and until within two years from the day on which it was presented to the governor general for the queen's assent, the governor general signifies, by speech or message to each of the houses of parliament or by proclamation, that it has received the assent of the queen in council.
An entry of every such speech, message or proclamation shall be made in the journal of each house, and a duplicate thereof duly attested shall be delivered to the proper officer to be kept among the records of Canada.
I read those two sections to show that the British North America Act was clear as to the power of disallowance; and I shall proceed from that point. It was because of section 56 of the British North America Act that section 6 of the Publication of Statutes Act, now to be repealed, was passed. That section states:
As soon as practicable after the prorogation of every session of parliament, the Clerk of the Parliaments shall obtain from the king's printer a sufficient number of bound copies of the Statutes of Canada passed during such session of parliament, and shall deliver to the governor general one copy duly certified, for transmission to one of His Majesty's principal secretaries of state, as required by the British North America Act 1867.
And- then it goes on to indicate that certified copies of all bills, along with certain other things, shall be delivered. The two acts, the British North America Act and the Publication of Statutes Act, especially section 6, are linked together; the one is woven into the fabric of the other.

The minister has indicated that on April 5, 1943, certain questions were asked with respect to this by the hon. member for Temiscouata. I do not think that I need to read the questions and answers in full, but I should like to indicate their general purport and significance.
It would appear that in 1942 the government stopped sending any further bound copies of the Statutes of Canada to the dominions office in London. As t'he minister pointed out, prior to that and after the Balfour declaration the procedure had been altered somewhat whereby the Secretary of State for External Affairs sent bound copies rather than the Clerk of the Parliaments. I have found out in my explorations that the Clerk of the Parliaments is actually the Clerk of the Senate. The channels through which the copies of the statutes were sent were changed from the Clerk of the Parliaments to one of His Majesty's principal secretaries, and they then went from the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the dominions office in London.
That went on from around 1930 until 1942. According to the answer given to the hon. member for Temiscouata, to be found on page 1828 of Hansard of April 5, 1943, the practice was then discontinued. The reason given by the Prime Minister was this, and I quote from page 1829:
The purpose of transmitting the Statutes of Canada in this manner has been to comply with the provisons of the Publication of Statutes Act and of section 56 of the British North America Act.
I have already put parts of those statutes on the record. The Prime Minister then goes on to say:
In 1942, in view of the complete obsolescence of the power of disallowance, and in order to bring the actual practice into conformity with the constitutional position, the transmission from the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs was stopped.
So far as I can gather there was no change from 1931 until 1942 with respect to our constitutional position, and in 1942 the government sent for the last time the Statutes of Canada to the United Kingdom. It may have been that the matter was overlooked in the meantime, but I think we are entitled to some explanation from the minister as to why they were stopped in that particular year. I am wondering -if they were stopped because the hon. member for Temiscouata put the questions he did on the order paper at that time It. would seem that up until the time the questions were put on the order paper and the answers given, the statutes had been going regularly through that last mentioned channel and without any hindrance or stoppage by the present government.

Publication oj Statutes Act
There is one point upon which I am not at all clear. A few moments ago the minister for external affairs referred to the conference of jurists which was held in 1929 for the purpose of giving an opinion as to our position, having in mind the Balfour declaration and the .changes brought about by the two imperial conferences held in the late twenties, the conference in 1930 being the last one held in respect to that. One thing which the minister tried to explain to the house was in reference to page 16 of the report of the conference of jurists, or commission of jurists, as he was pleased to call it. They agreed that any self-governing dominion could abolish the legal power of disallowance if they so desired, and it is upon those words that I want to build another point in my argument.
The British North America Act by section 56 plainly gives the power of disallowance. The conference of jurists indicated that that power could be abolished by the parliament of a self-governing dominion. The Statute of Westminster, passed in 1931, does not amend the British North America Act, and consequently does not amend section 56, which provides for the power of disallowance in the other parliament. While I understand clearly what the minister says with respect to the effect of the Statute of Westminster and its wide significance so far as our nationhood is concerned, still that statute provides by section 7:
Nothing in this act shall be deemed to apply to the repeal, amendment or alteration of the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1930, or any order, rule or regulation made thereunder.
Having made a careful check of the amendments to the British North America Act since 1930 I find that there has been none which could in any way be stretched to include section 56 which calls for the power of disallowance by the United Kingdom. That being so, I only want to go into the matter as fully as possible in order to see if we cannot clarify our position. According to the statutes which I have brought to the attention of the house this afternoon, that power of disallowance is still outstanding. If so it is a serious business for this parliament and a serious business for this country. The power of disallowance is tied in with the legislation at present before the house. It seems to me that this legislation either goes too far or it does not go far enough. Tied in as it is with section 56 of the British North America Act this bill is neither flesh nor fowl nor good red herring. It is an innocent useless measure unless the legislation with respect to the disallowance clause in section 56 is actually obsolescent. I 83166-2194
should like to know from the minister when we are in committee what obsolescence means.
If that section is obsolescent and has no meaning, then so is the Publication of Statutes Act obsolescent and without meaning My point I think is clear. If one needs amendment, both need amendment; if one does not need amendment, neither does the other, because the two are so closely linked together.
The other point I would raise is this. When the terms of the Statute of Westminster were agreed upon by the various members of the commonwealth, were changes such as this discussed and decided upon? Why is this matter arising now, some seventeen years afterwards? Also I would ask what about the other members of the British commonwealth of nations? What is their procedure in matters such as this, having in mind the Statute of Westminster itself. The house is entitled to know these things. On the surface this bill appears to be an innocuous piece of legislation. When I first looked at it, it seemed as though we might as well put in statutory form what we have been doing and that is drop the practice of sending these statutes across to the old country. But there is much more to it than appears on the surface, because, as I have tried to show, it goes to the root of an important principle with respect to the British commonwealth of nations.
This brings me to another point which I would like to impress upon the government. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, it is time that the members of the British commonwealth of nations ought to be less shy about each other and that they should try to arrange for more regular, frank, man-to-man talks among themselves. There is no reason why Canada should not take the lead and call a commonwealth and empire conference, even in the year 1947. There have been calls for such a [DOT] conference from many prominent citizens, both in the United Kingdom and here, and by the press of both countries. Ex parte methods such as this before us, a little whittling at the main issue, amending some little section in the Publication of Statutes Act-that is not what the people expect today. They expect that we shall get together as units of the commonwealth and clarify our position, and that our constitutional position shall be brought up to date where that needs to be done. Canada stands in a splendid position in regard to the commonwealth. It would not surprise me, even if it should other members of the house, if in the years that lie ahead this country became the centre of a greater and more powerful British commonwealth of nations. Canada ought to give the lie to those in other parts of the world who
Publication of Statutes Act

say that we are witnessing the liquidation of the commonwealth and empire. That is not quite what the people of this country or the people in other parts of the British commonwealth really believe.
No one is prouder of being a Canadian than I am, and no one I think has ever more clearly expressed that than I have. More than that, I am one of those who have always revelled in the fact that Canada is an autonomous nation in that great, happy and peaceful family of nations. But at the same time I think that Canada's most brilliant prospects as a nation will be heightened and brightened by taking a more active lead in this great peace-loving family of nations of which we are so proud to form a part.
The Right Hon. Anthony Eden, standing in this house in 1943 where the Clerk Assistant is now sitting, made some momentous statements, and one which received applause from every section of the house regardless of party was that the British commonwealth of nations was a pattern upon which the peace structure of the world might well be fashioned. I think that is so, Mr. Speaker. We as a commonwealth and empire mesh in well with the present international machinery. The commonwealth and empire have no national objective that can be gratified by war and no international objective that cannot be fully gratified by peace in the jrears that lie ahead. And so because of the extent to which this legislation and that which is tied up with it fits into the great framework of the British commonwealth of nations-perhaps I should not call it a framework because after all, as has been well said, the looser the bond the closer the tie, and there is nothing of the strait-jacket about the British commonwealth and the empire; for it can develop and expand without snapping any of its bonds, which is one of the great things about it-because this legislation comes so close to the whole picture of our commonwealth relations I have asked this afternoon for the clarification which perhaps the minister will feel like giving when we are in committee. On that understanding I am agreeable to the bill being given second reading now.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, whatever criticisms may be made of this bill I think it is a step in the right direction. It gives the proper interpretation to the present constitutional position. As to its marking the disassociation of members of the British commonwealth I must confess that I cannot see that. Much that has been the subject of criticism in the British empire is being removed and the empire is

being turned into a commonwealth of selfgoverning nations, the ultimate end of which will be a stronger and better and more real association, I believe, than we have at the present time. I look forward to the maintenance of that association, but I do think that constitutional provisions as obsolete as the one we are discussing this afternoon can only lead to misunderstanding outside this country. I know that again and again when one is in the United States one will be asked about the constitutional position of Canada, and when one says that we are a self-governing independent nation within the commonwealth, questions of this kind are asked: Is it not right that the British parliament has the power of disallowance? Have you the right to amend your own constitution? Who governs you? Who sends the Governor General, and so forth? I do not think we weaken the commonwealth association one bit by facing the constitutional realities and wiping from our statute books matters which are subjects of misunderstandings abroad and which are not in conformity with our present procedures. Therefore I believe that this bill should be supported by the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Clerk of the Parliaments to have custody of certain original documents.
Eric Bowness McKay: While there is provision for an amendment to the Publication of Statutes Act, may I draw the minister's attention to the index and tables of the public statutes found in the Revised Statutes of Canada. In the extreme left column the subject matter is stated. In the middle column the number of the revised statute is given; on the right the amendments are given with the year and the chapter amendment. To facilitate the locating of sections, it seems to me they should be indicated, and some sectional revision should be made. Not infrequently one must go back eight, ten and even twenty years to locate the amending sections. That all takes considerable time. Would it not be possible to state the section amended as well as the chapter? If the amendments were indicated it would save hon. members considerable trouble and time.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The hon. member is, of course, aware, that this index is not an official part of the statute; it is something that is prepared as an aid to those who have to consult the statutes. I shall have the hon. member's remarks drawn to the attention of those who attend to the printing and binding

Publication oj Statutes Act
of the statutes, because I think it would indeed be helpful to have the amendments indexed not only as to the chapter but also as to the sections.


Gordon Graydon: Is it the minister's opinion that this particular part of the Publication of Statutes Act is in any different position from that of section 56 of the British North America Act?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Section 56 of the British North America Act now provides for something which a general conference of the governments of the autonomous units of the commomvealth have declared formally to be obsolete. It has become a recognized practice that disallowance will not be recommended by ministers of His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom with respect to any legislation of an autonomous dominion. That is the constitutional status which has been attained. It has also been declared that the parliament of the United Kingdom would not undertake to legislate for an autonomous dominion unless it be at the request of that dominion. That is the present constitutional situation. If, in spite of that, the parliament of the United Kingdom chose to reenact the Colonial Laws Validity Act and to attempt again to treat the units of the commonwealth as subordinate colonies, in theory it might still be the legal effect of such statutes, but it would not work. It would not operate; it would be the death-knell of the commonwealth association.
We could have proceeded to submit joint addresses to ask that the terms of section 56 of the British North America Act be modified, but whenever we do attempt any modification whatsoever of the British North America Act we have a pretty active controversy in this country. Today it is not desirable to have these controversies unless we are going to achieve something as a result of the controversy. When it is merely something that is academic the controversy is undesirable.
In 1940 the hon. member for Temiscouata brought up this matter of transmitting our statutes and he was told what- the practice then was. The hon. member just slightly qualified what I had said. Before 1926 the channel of communication between a dominion and His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom was the Governor General. That was the original position. He was the representative of the government of the United Kingdom; he was the channel through which the dominion communicated. Then the usual process by which constitutional changes have come about wdthout revolution in British countries operated and the Governor
General got into the position where, in fact, his constitutional relationship with his ministers in Canada was the same as the constitutional relationship of His Majesty with his ministers in the United Kingdom. That became the situation in fact, recognized as such, and the channel of communication between the Canadian government and the government of the United Kingdom became the office of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I do not mean to assert that we are to have an embargo on the export of statutes to the United Kingdom. As a matter of fact they still go. They need them for their own information as we need theirs for our information.
But here is a provision in a Canadian statute which states that certain copies are to be sent for a certain purpose, and that purpose has entirely disappeared. Therefore the proposal that was made originally came up in 1940 and in 1942. It was proposed that the Clerk of the Parliaments be told not to comply with the Publication of Statutes Act. That proposal was not accepted. It was felt that it would not be proper for the government to attempt to say that a servant of parliament would not do what parliament had said he should do, and that if he was not to do it parliament should be asked to make the necessary statement. That is what the bill is for. It would be quite as logical to have addresses to modify section 56 of the British North America Act; but my hon. friend knows what suspicion would be aroused. Any attempt at this time to get an amendment to the constitution would give rise to serious controversy. There would be some who would say that it is not going far enough. I was horrified to read in one of the papers of my province that the new editor appointed to direct the course of that paper was advocating a Canadian republic. To have any controversy over whether we are to have at this time a Canadian republic or not would be. I think, a pretty futile one, one that would not lead to any practical result and would stir up a lot of feeling for nothing. Why not deal only with the things that will achieve some practical result and not unnecessarily stir up controversy that does engender some bitterness and produce no good. Therefore it was felt that the only unnecessary thing that was still being done was that the Clerk of the Parliaments was complying with this requirement of a Canadian statute.


John George Diefenbaker: What practical
result is achieved by doing it in the manner that is followed here instead of by address?
Publication oj Statutes Act

Mr. ST. LAURENT: The practical result will be that the Clerk of the Parliaments will be no longer under any obligation imposed upon him by a Canadian statute to send certified copies to the Secretary of State for External Affairs for the purpose of their being sent to Britain for examination and disallowance. He will be no longer under that duty. His Excellency the Governor General will, if he were to feel that this declaration of obsolescence is not sufficient to relieve him, still have the duty put upon him by the British North America Act of doing what section 56 calls for, but I do not think he will feel any conscientious scruples about not doing it, while the Clerk of the Parliaments, being required by a Canadian statute, which was consolidated in 1927. to act in a certain way, felt that he should do so, and no one felt that he could be told not to do it unless parliament relieved him from that duty.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it a fact that he has not been doing that, or was not from 1940 to 1943?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: He has been doing it. He still sends copies to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but since 1942 the Secretary of State for External Affairs has not sent them for the purpose for which the Clerk of the Parliaments sends them to him. Instead, the copies he gets for that purpose he sends to the library of this parliament to be added to those that are kept there.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Copies for Registrar General.
Mr. C.RAYDON: With all deference, I think the minister has made a good case out of the material he has, but the situation is still confused. I am not at all certain that the questions asked by the hon. member for Lake Centre, and pretty powerful questions too, have been answered in a way that entirely satisfies me. On the other hand, the minister has perhaps reasons for this kind of thing. If, however, section 56 is subject to obsolescence, or whatever term the Prime Minister uses, this also is subject to obsolescence.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Possibly it is subject to obsolescence, but the Clerk of the Parliaments is faced with a statute which was reenacted in 1927 and he complies with it.
Gordon Graydon: He is still faced with section 56.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No. That is an obligation imposed upon the Governor General, and that has not been carried out by His Excellency for a great many years, since the establishment of the Department of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Secretary

of State for External Affairs, through his officers, had been simply following the old practice: "The Secretary of State for External Affairs presents his compliments to the Secretary of State for the Dominions and advises him that he is forwarding so many copies of Canadian statutes", and they used to go as a matter of course. When the question was raised in 1940 the matter was discussed as to whether a bill would be brought down then or not. The country was at war and it was felt it would not be desirable to introduce any bill at that time. The subject came up again in 1942. It was discussed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the under-secretary of state for external affairs, and they decided that they would no longer send copies. The next year a question was put by the hon. member for Temiscouata, and the question again arose whether we should bring in a bill. The decision was that we would not do so while the war was on, and this is the first opportunity that has offered to have a bill since the war came to an end.
It may be unnecessary. Perhaps, if my right hon. colleague the Minister of Justice were consulted, he would give an opinion that would satisfy the Clerk of the Parliaments that the Canadian statute is as obsolete as that provision in the British North America Act. But I am not sure that he would, and I am sure that if parliament passes this bill it will settle this matter.


Gordon Graydon: If the Governor General is not greatly concerned about his position, I should not think the Clerk of the Parliaments would be either.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister has given a most interesting review, and a good deal of information has been brought before the committee. I am particularly interested in one statement he made, namely that for some years the Governor General has not been carrying out the provisions of section 56. As I understood the minister, he stated that since Canada had had a Department of External Affairs the Governor General has not followed the provisions of the section. What I should like the minister to tell us is this. When were the provisions of this section discontinued, so far as the Governor General is concerned? Who made the arrangements for the change? Was there any communication with any governmental authority outside Canada when the decision was made by the Governor General not to transmit any further statutes passed by parliament?

Publication of Statutes Act
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I will not say that the Governor General ever did the transmitting personally.


John George Diefenbaker: No.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: They were transmitted in the name of the Governor General.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: When the Department of the Secretary of State for External Affairs was set up, communications to the United Kingdom government were made in the name of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. No other arrangement was arrived at, and this provision of section 56 probably does not mean anything other than the Canadian government. The words ''Governor General" probably mean nothing less than the Canadian government, because under the British North America Act the Governor General is in terms the administrator of His Majesty's government in Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: Is that strictly correct under the British North America Act?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes; all executive power is vested in His Majesty and exercised on behalf of His Majesty by the Governor General, with the advice of his ministers in Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to know since what year the Governor General has not transmitted the statutes passed by this parliament. The minister has not answered the question at all. He made the statement that from the time Canada had a minister for external affairs the Governor General ceased to send copies of the statutes passed by parliament. My question is simply this: since what year has section 56 not been carried out?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I will not say section 56 was not carried out. The terms of section 56 were carried out,, in fact, up to 1942 inclusive. I am sorry I have not the old file here. The oldest one I have contains a letter addressed by the Clerk of the Parliaments on January 15, 1940, to the under-secretary of state for external affairs, in compliance with section 6 of chapter 2 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927:
. . . I send you, herewith, a certified copy of the Statutes of Canada passed during the fourth session of the eighteenth parliament, 3 George VI, 1939, for transmission to one of His Majesty's principal secretaries of state.
That was followed by a communication in the name of the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the following terms:
The Secretary of State for External Affairs presents his compliments to the secretary of
state for dominion affairs and has the honour to enclose herewith, for transmission to the librarian, dominions office, six copies of . . .
And so on. I can get the old files and on another occasion give my hon. friend the time any change in the language of transmission was made.


John George Diefenbaker: From what the minister has said in reply to the hon. member for Peel, do I understand that ordinarily it would have been considered necessary to apply to parliament for an address from both houses in order to repeal any section of the British North America Act? That is the law and practice, but in this instance, because the sections in question have become obsolete through changing practice over the years, the government decided that an address to amend the British North America Act at this time might have aroused suspicion, to use my right hon. friend's word, or difficulties in parliament, with the possibility of a long discussion on the subject. Instead, the shorter and indirect course has been followed, namely, that of amending a statute which was passed by parliament to implement the pertinent sections of the British North America Act. Does that sum up the situation?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I would not say it was to do anything to the British North America Act indirectly. It does not do anything to the British North America Act either directly or indirectly. It does propose to repeal, as being the simpler method, a statute which was passed by the Canadian parliament to implement something that was in the British North America Act.


John George Diefenbaker: There is just one other question. Are there any sections of the British North America Act that are obsolete at this date, other than sections 55, 56 and 57?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Without giving the matter very careful consideration. I should not like to say there are sections which are obsolete. There is no doubt that if one were to frame a constitution at the present time it would be expressed in language that would be appropriate to present practices, and much of the language that is in the British North America Act might be changed.


Mr. GR  AYDON@: Just when do the provisions of a statute reach the stage of obsolescence?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That is a matter which is subject to the Einstein theory of relativity. My hon. friend knows as well as I do that statutes do become obsolescent.
United Nations

What does it require for one to become obsolescent? They are not in fact recognized as obsolescent until some court or body in authority has said so. With respect to the ordinary rules of law, it is the courts that say, "Well, that has beeome obsolescent," and until they find that as a fact no one is entitled to regard it as obsolescent. Here this body, made up of representatives of all the autonomous states of the commonwealth, found that this was obsolescent and made recommendations accordingly. The recommendations they made were based upon that as well as the other declarations of the conference, and in the Statute of Westminster they were accepted by this parliament and the parliaments of all the other units of the commonwealth, on the basis that this disallowance and reservation had become obsolescent, and on the basis that the Governor General was no longer the channel of communication between the government of a dominion and the government of the United Kingdom. That was the real foundation upon which the Statute of Westminster was built, and it was accepted everywhere.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
On the title.
Gordon Graydon: May I ask the minister one other question I asked him before? What is the position of the other units of the commonwealth with respect to this very problem with which we are now dealing?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am sorry I am not in a position to say whether or not they had local statutes of their own implementing the provisions which had to do with disallowance and reservations.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved the second reading of Bill No. 132, respecting article 41 of the charter of the united nations.
Gordon Graydon: I expect the minister will want to make some explanation, and I myself have some remarks to offer.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Under the charter of the united nations, approved by both houses of the Canadian parliament, it is provided that

there shall be, as the principal organ for the maintenance of security among the united nations, a security council. The charter provides three phases of procedure in dealing with disputes which may arise between nations. The first is the phase of conciliation, when the security council uses its best endeavours to get the parties to the dispute to agree to remove the cause of the dispute. If the procedure of conciliation fails, then article 41 of the charter empowers the security council to decide upon non-military sanctions, which will be applied to a recalcitrant state. The council may decide what measures, not involving the use of armed force, are to be employed to give effect to its decisions; and it may call upon members of the united nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
That is the article which gives to the security council the power to make these decisions. Under article 25, to which we have agreed:
The members of the united nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the security council in accordance with the present charter.
As hon. members know, the Canadian government can enter into international arrangements. But the action of the Canadian parliament is required to make it obligatory for Canadian citizens to do the things that may be necessary to carry out t'he international obligations assumed by the Canadian government.
At the present time there does not seem to be any urgent need for action to implement decisions under article 41 of the charter. Unfortunately-at least I regard it as unfortunate-proceedings in the security council have dragged to an extent and to a degree that has appeared to be disappointing and not to give us the feeling that it was capable and willing to take an active hand in preventing international strife. Nevertheless we have agreed to the charter. It is the only international instrument we have at the present time, and members on all sides of the house have declared that they support the policy of doing everything Canada can do to make the united nations succeed.
That being the attitude, we do not want to be subject to any reproach that any act or omission of ours was a reason for delay in having the united nations and the security council fully operative. We therefore ask parliament to authorize the governor in council. should occasion arise, to make such orders binding upon Canadian citizens as might be required to carry out Canada's obligations

United Nations
under articles 41 and 25 of the charter of the united nations in respect of non-military sanctions imposed by the security council upon a recalcitrant member of the united nations organization.
Similar legislation has been passed by the parliament of the United Kingdom and by the parliament of New Zealand. It has not yet been passed by the parliament of Australia, or that of South Africa. Similar legislation is not required in the United States. When the united nations charter was approved by the American Senate, that made it the law of the land; and it is in all respects a part of the law of the United States. So that the executive government there has power to carry it out. It is there in such form as to bind the individual American citizen.
Here, under our system, international treaties do not have a binding effect upon individuals because it is not normally within the power of the government to impose obligations upon citizens. It is only by parliament that that can be done; and this bill is recommended to parliament to empower the governor in council to take by order in council such action as we might be required to take by a directive of the security council.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, the procedure in Canada in respect of this legislation has been somewhat similar to that taken by the parliament of the United Kingdom. This is another piece of legislation which has come from the other chamber for our attention. The same procedure was followed in the United Kingdom. Over there the debates showed clearly, as they took place on April 5, 1946, in the House of Commons at Westminster, that there was a unanimity of opinion which, in view of the present situation in the British House of Commons, is a matter of interest.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) referred to two sections of the charter of the united nations which deal with and bear upon the legislation now before us. Article 25 says:
The members of the united nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the security council in accordance with the present charter.
And article 41 says:
The security council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the members of the united nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
The United Kingdom was the first nation with a constitution requiring such legislative 83166-220
action to pass this provision. During t^e debates in the House of Commons at Westminster, reference was made from time to time to the fact that they were pioneering.
In my view the legislation before us does not necessarily involve a question of principle, because we must remember that we are bound by the principle of the charter. It does, however, deal at length with the method to be employed, and which we intend to employ in carrying out the undertakings we have already given when we attached our signatures to the San Francisco charter. In the bill before us wide and sweeping powers are given the executive. Perhaps I need not place on record the language of the bill itself, because it is in the hands of hon. members. I understand that when the bill went to the other place it was even more sweeping in its characteristics than it is now. After considering it in their house and in a committee, the honourable members of the other place succeeded in changing, altering and restricting the penalties. But even now the bill is not quite as sweeping as the one passed by the United Kingdom parliament. There are some suggestions which I have to make, based upon those which received the sanction of that parliament and which. I think, could be properly applied and would, I believe, strengthen and better the legislation now before this chamber.
The restrictions in connection with penalties are not to be found in a corresponding way in the United Kingdom legislation. Under normal circumstances I think this house would rebel against the giving of such wide and sweeping powers to the executive at the present time. However, there are perhaps arguments which the government will want to use to the effect that this situation is different from the one we would normally face in the domestic field. May I say that whatever happens to this legislation, whatever sweeping powers are given under this legislation, it must not be considered as a precedent in the domestic field.
Several questions were raised in the other place with respect to the legislation. I cannot deal with them, but there is one thing I think the minister ought to answer. I should like him to make a note of this because it should be dealt with either on second reading or when the bill is in committee. I refer to the question which was raised with respect to dominion and provincial jurisdiction. This is a move in time of peace rather than in time of war, and the question was raised as to whether or not certain items in the legislation are beyond the purview of the dominion pailiament to enact. There is nothing wrong

United Nations

with raising that question. If we are to have the power in Canada, it must be constitutional power. I raise this question in order that the minister may reply later. The question arises as to whether or not international conventions signed by the government bind the Dominion of Canada including the provinces, or whether we might have to watch our step because of the privy council decisions in connection with the Bennett reform legislation passed in 1935. These are matters which deserve some attention and should be answered by the government.
One member in the other place referred to this bill as having teeth in it. I have not been able to find anything but false teeth in most of the enactments that have been passed by the united nations up to date. In all fairness and frankness, one has to admit that up to the present time there has not been much in the way of teeth in the heavily endowed organs of the new world organization.
While this bill went to a committee in the other place, we have had no full report from that committee. We should have the evidence which was considered, particularly when we are dealing with legislation such as this. Otherwise the Commons is going to be somewhat in the dark with respect to what has happened in connection with the examination of witnesses and the like.
I should like to ask the minister under what act such as this Canada had the right to apply sanctions under the old league of nations. I should like to know whether any such bill was passed and, if so, when? Our part in the sanctions of 1935 was not something that many Canadians can look back upon with any great degree of glowing pride. I think we all remember when statesmen in Canada, I suppose supported by public opinion, suggested that the Abyssinian dispute was not worth the life of a single Canadian soldier. Perhaps that was so; but whatever happened, whether it was the accumulation and combination of the Abyssinian and other disputes, finally we reached the position where we lost not just one single Canadian soldier but 39,500 in all branches of the services only a few years afterward. That gives one some idea of how we should look back upon these sanctions.
We had our experience before with economic sanctions and I took the trouble to look up the newspaper reports of 1935. When one could find news of the sanction problem among the returns from the general elections of that particular period he found something like the following, which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of November 4, 1935:
The league of nations subcommittee on economic sanctions approved in principle today

the Canadian proposal that petroleum, coal, iron and steel be added to the prohibited list-introduced Saturday by Doctor W. A. Riddell to committee of 18.
Then the Ottawa Journal of November 16, 1935, contained this:
Canada moves in sanctions against Italy. Necessary order in council reported passed by government.
Then on December 2, 1935, the same paper stated that Mr. Riddell was silent on the stand that the government had taken, that only his personal opinions were represented and not the views of the Canadian government when he took the step he did in connection with oil sanctions against Italy. The Standard of London said:
Canada makes news. Her government has repudiated responsibility for the proposed oil sanctions against Italy. Today's declaration indicates a big break in the ranks of the sanction-ist nations.
We have travelled a long way since then. When we are speaking about the glowing future, it is always worth while to stop and take an inventory of the not too glorious past. That is why I have brought up the questions I have today. We have gone a long way since the day when a statesman representing Canada at the league of nations-it is really not so long ago-said that Canada was in a favoured position in that she lived in a fireproof house so far as world affairs were concerned. We have gone a long way since then, and it is a good job that we have. We have now reached the point where the house is being asked to give a body outside Canada, a body upon which there may not necessarily be Canadian representation, the right to sever our trade, our communications and our diplomatic relationships. The government is now asking parliament to give it the power to carry that out. It is not proper to raise grave questions about that at this moment, and I am not doing so. I am only indicating the distance to which parliament and the people of Canada appear to have gone. We are now agreeing to do the collective international bidding of other nations. By this legislation we give that obedience now, and in doing so I think we are making a significant move. Just as the question was asked in the United Kingdom parliament, we .might here ask whether other nations throughout the world are giving this power as well.
Of course, our position in Canada is this, that the world is but a shrunken ball of its former self, and here we are sandwiched between two great centres of power with competing ideals and whose efforts at closer collaboration have not always been successful. I

United Nations
think most of our people realize now that our property and our lives are perhaps more endangered by what happens from without than by what happens from within. It may be that between the last two wars when we took the isolationist stand we did we were greenhorns in diplomatic circles, but that does not entirely excuse us for what we did although it provides a pretty valuable lesson for what we should do at this time. Moreover, when we were taking the position we did we were travelling in pretty prominent isolationist company. I fancy that not only has Canada learned some lessons but the great republic to the south has learned some lessons too, and the events of very recent times have proven it, because the great republic to the south is now spending, not by the million but by the billion, on fire-ranging in various parts of the world in order to extinguish blazes which later might cost them as much if they actually got out of control, as they did in former times. Bearing that in mind, I suppose it is not to be wondered at that the Canadian people, the Canadian government and the Canadian parliament should find themselves digging deeper into the soil of world affairs than they ever did before.
I want to give this warning, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Canadian people are keeping abreast of all this great movement into the international field which parliament and the government are taking.


John Horne Blackmore: They have not a chance.


Gordon Graydon: My hon. friend says they have not a chance and perhaps he is right. He is right very often about a number of things. It seems to me essential that parliament and the government and public opinion should form one great team in Canada, for otherwise, if one gets ahead of the other, a disastrous reaction might conceivably set in. That is one of the things I am so anxious about. I am hopeful that we in parliament who have from time to time been representatives of this country in the united nations organization are carrying with us public opinion, because, after all, if this is to be a peace that will be permanent, it has to be a peace supported by the peoples of the world, or otherwise it can never be a permanent peace, as I hope and pray it will be.
The surrender of sovereignty, upon which one of my hon. friends spoke so eloquently this afternoon, is something which touches vitally the very life of our people. It is so easy to talk about the surrender of sovereignty 83166-220J
without knowing exactly what it means and without having experienced what it means. What our experience will be in the surrender of sovereignty is another matter for which perhaps I cannot answer. One sees examples of those who do not seem very anxious to give up their sovereignty, for I find, by the current issue of Newsweek, that the frankest pa-sage in Gromyko's speech was this-as you know. Mr. Speaker, Gromyko is the soviet representative on the security council:
The united nations is an organization of sovereign nations. The Soviet Union cannot agree that its national economy be made dependent on the will even of a majority of the control organ.
That, coming from one of the major powers in the world, is pretty difficult for us to understand, particularly in view of the fact that that great nation was one of those which had signed the charter in the first instance and is also protected by her veto on the security council.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Did the hon. member notice the word "economy" in there? Is any other nation prepared to surrender its economic sovereignty?


Gordon Graydon: My hon. friend is, I think, on an entirely different tack from the one I am taking. I am trying to indicate that the soviet itself is not reaching out with any great degree of eagerness and enthusiasm to allow other nations to direct its policy and tell it what it is going to do, and I would not have been at all surprised if Mr. Gromyko had made an even franker declaration if he were not speaking in public.
The other point I would make is this. This is our first bill which recognizes the fact that our sovereignty is to be surrendered in the interests of world peace and the united nations organization. This is the first bill which actually implements that partial surrender of sovereignty'. I think, too, that this bill means the gearing of ourselves to a new policy of more political surrender of national sovereignty to the united nations organization. It may be that many of us are not anxious to do that. It may be that some people look jealously upon our own rights so far as national sovereignty is concerned. But we signed the San Francisco charter with the overwhelming approval of the people as a whole. We signed what we are now purporting to implement so far as practical considerations are concerned.
One cannot look upon the economic sanctions end of our united nations work without thinking also of the collateral part, the military' sanctions. The military sanctions and the staff committee's report to the security coun-
United, Nations

cil have been one of the most disappointing and discouraging things that I have heard or read since I have had anything to do with the united nations itself. It is not setting up an international army, navy or air force. It does not purport to do that. The report in fact says that, because there are so many of the big powers which have a veto and can say no, there is no use in having a large army, navy or air force at all. In other words, we are not even to have an international police force. We are just going to have a nice easygoing little body of truant officers to make sure that the little boys throughout the world will not cause any trouble. But. Mr. Speaker, when did the little boys cause any trouble without the help of the big ones? You will not have a world war started until you get the big boys in there. You will have no global conflict and no world war until the big boys join in, although it might be started on the pretext of a little boy having done something.
I look askance, I look with grave disappointment at the fact that we are apparently to have a toothless- security council. That has many aspects that we do not always realize, because the whole question of national disarmament the world over is predicated on that very thing. There is not a single nation of the world that will disarm unless it is sure that its national security is to be guaranteed, and effectively guaranteed by somebody else or something else. If they cannot rely on anything more than a few truant officers in the security council there will never be any disarmament even on a minor scale in the world. That is one of the reasons why I look with such discouragement and disappointment upon the report of the military staff committee, because it might easily mean the beginning of an arms race again in the world, which most of us had hoped and prayed the united nations organization would obviate with its great structure for peace.
With respect to this particular bill, I must say that the United Kingdom are in a little different position from us. They have the veto so far as economic sanctions are concerned. We have none. Even if we are one of the non-permanent members of the security council, which we are not today, we shall not have any. Hon. members know what the veto means. I realize it is perhaps futile and hopeless to talk about it now. It was a compromise in the original instance, but you see what happens. You have five powers with the veto who can say that nothing will be done. That is what it means. Nothing will be done; you will not have economic sanction; you will not have international troops go into a country; in other words, they can paralyse the effort of

the united nations organization. Any one of the five can do that. What happens? Every little power cultivates a big power for a friend. Why would they not? It is the most natural thing in the world because, unless they have a big power for a friend, then the united nations organization might conceivably go in with their international force, small as it might conceivably be. With all that comes a gathering around with each one of the big five as a core. There is a gathering around of nations. What does that mean? That means the old days of power blocs in the world again. That is one of the things that we in Canada must watch very carefully.
I wish to make another observation that has nothing to do with military matters in the ordinary sense. When the San Francisco charter was signed I thought there were dangerous loopholes in it. One of the major loopholes is perhaps this. While in various parts of the charter we had provisions for economic sanctions, in other parts of the charter we provided for armed forces to stop aggression. But all the time we were talking about military aggression. The charter was silent on perhaps what has become the most modern, perhaps the strongest and most effective, certainly the most insidious, kind of aggression. The charter did not cover the question of ideological aggression at all.


John Horne Blackmore: Or industrial aggression.


Gordon Graydon: I shall be glad to have my hon. friend add to my speech because he can always make it better by doing so. But I wish to say that it would have been more to the point if some way could have been found whereby the united nations could apply some kind of sanctions to the ideological aggression which is so evident and so much abroad in the world today. It is not armed aggression, but it has the germs of provocation which, I hope, will not lead to armed aggression in the days that lie ahead, although there are certainly chances for that situation arising.
I hope that this bill will be carefully considered, not just on second reading. We are prepared to recommend second reading for the purpose of having it go before the external affairs committee. There are some parts of it that ought to go before that committee. Following the procedure which was adopted in the other house, I make this plea to the minister. In view of the fact that no evidence is available to us from the other place, the bill ought to be sent to a standing committee of the house. When that is done I hope that

United Nations
the government will give consideration to one or two matters which occurred to me as being important in connection with strengthening the bill. It is so important that I think the government ought to give some undertaking, so far as it can do so, that in serious cases, while parliament is sitting, the government will not unnecessarily avail itself of the wide and sweeping powers contained in the emergency legislation with which it is now clothed. I realize, and so does the government, that time may be of the essence so far as these matters are concerned. So far as I am personally concerned, I am not going to withhold from the government the right to act quickly if an emergency arises, because minutes and not hours may be the deciding factor with respect to sanctions. More than that, the government ought to do what the United Kingdom did, namely, not to wait for fifteen days or whatever the act calls for in regard to the time of tabling the order in council when parliament is sitting. If parliament is sitting the order in council should be laid on the table forthwith. That is what is done in the British house, and we could do no better than to follow the precedent that they have set.
The question of penalties ought to be thoroughly reviewed and considered. Those are matters that can be left to the good judgment of the standing committee on external affairs if the government sees fit to refer the bill to that body. In that committee we must see what practical factors are involved so far as the Canadian people are concerned. We must know that because it is essential. While some people may be carried off their feet by the onrushing winds of cloudy sentimentality, the nations of the world are beginning to be more realistic about the whole question of peace. We should make sure that we are applying common-sense Canadianism to world problems of today.
I also wish to mention what was referred to in one of the debates in the British house when a similar bill was before parliament there. It is something which we can take to heart ourselves. Let us not play with the question of the united nations and peace. So often-and I do not say this necessarily about any party or group in the house-we are somewhat hypocritical. Let us not be hypocritical about the whole question of peace and what it means. Very often -we talk one way and when it comes down to the hard cold facts we want to talk in another way. We cannot have our cake and eat it. I suggest that we have a policy of economic sanctions which is not the type of policy that the Canadian government repudiated in 1935, but a policy that, to use the words of a British statesman in the house when the debate was in progress, cannot be characterized as all bark and no bite.
I believe that many hon. members will be glad to endorse and approve this legislation, because Canada cannot stay out of a great structure of economic sanctions, since this nation must never leave itself in the position, so far as an offending nation is concerned, of being an international bootlegger in any sense of the term. That is not our role. It is not 1he kind of role Canada has played up to date or intends to play in the years that lie ahead.
Let me say this in conclusion. Either we mean business in this international fight to keep the peace, or we do not. If we do, then let us shoulder our full responsibility. If we do not, let us not be hypocritical but rather abandon the whole thing now.
I believe I speak for everyone in our party in this house when I say that I for one want Canada to pull her full weight and, having that definitely in mind, I will support this legislation for the reasons I mentioned a few moments ago.


Major James William Coldwell: This piece of legislation is something we are obligated to adopt, and I think the suggestion of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), that the matter be considered by the committee on external affairs, is one which the government might well accept.
When I look at the charter of the united nations I realize to what an extent article 41 is intended to carry out the intention of the preamble:
We the peoples of the united nations, determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind-
-obligate ourselves to do certain things. We obligate ourselves-
-to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest.
The article we are now discussing places in the hands of the security council a means whereby it is hoped that the subsequent use of armed force may be avoided. Consequently it is an article of the united nations charter which should command the support of all parties in this house.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Peel as he discussed the question of sovereignty. I do not regard our
United Nations

adherence to the united nations as in any way involving our surrender of sovereignty. To my mind, what it actually does is to extend our sovereignty far beyond our own borders, extending it into affairs where otherwise we might have no voice and might not be able to help to determine policy which might involve us in disastrous results in the years to come.
The very fact that we are a member of the united nations, though at the moment we are not a member of the security council, does give us an extension of our sovereignty over matters about which we would have no say and in which, at least, we would have no determining voice. And so this article 41 of me charter gives us a right to participate in measures that may be necessary in order to prevent the involvement of all other countries and our own in a worldwide war.
I do not think any of us in this house, whether we have seen the united nations in operation or not, and have followed the work of the security council and other organs of the united nations, can say that so far the organization has measured up to what those of us who were in San Francisco hoped it would attain. But in spite of all the criticisms that might be levelled against the united nations organization, one is inclined to ask the critics:	What do you suggest that could
take its place? That is the crucial question. What is there that could be 'devised which at this moment would take it place?
I hope that one day we may reach the stage foreshadowed by the prophets of old when we may beat our swords into ploughshares, when the lion may lie down with the lamb, and when we may live together as a great brotherhood, under some kind of federation or parliament of man. But the parliament of man is a long way off. I believe it is possible through an organization, even as we have set it up at the present time, to look forward to its ending the possibility of armed conflict among the peoples. I say, armed conflict, because I agree with the hon. member for Peel that there are two kinds of struggle. There is also the ideological struggle, but I would say to him that I know of no way in which it would be possible to prevent the flow of ideas across the world, which are at the root of the ideological struggle; and my reliance, as far a,s the ideological struggle is concerned, is upon the belief that the democratic way, democratic methods of self-government, will enable our people to do all those things which are necessary to improve our standards of living, and so on, so that ultimately the ideology of freedom, in the political and in

the economic sphere, will be attained and safeguarded because of its rightness and its power.
May I ask that you call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I have the consent of the house to say this. Several members have asked about the resumption of the budget debate. The debate will be resumed tomorrow afternoon, and we most earnestly ask for the cooperation of all parties to conclude it tomorrow.


Mr. GREEN:: Will the discussion of the resolutions follow?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Immediately.


Gordon Graydon: And continue until finished?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Major James William Coldwell: Before six o'clock, I was discussing article 41 of the charter of the united nations, and had remarked that we could not draw a curtain across the world and prevent ideas from flowing in various directions; nor should we seek to do so. I know the feeling of the various delegates who were present at the meeting of the united nations in New York last autumn, and before that in London and San Francisco, was the feeling expressed by Mrs. Roosevelt on one occasion, when she said of her work on the economic and social council that it was the most exasperating thing in the world.
We know we have to arrive at understandings with the country that in the last twenty-five years has emerged as a great world power. I refer to Russia. They do not understand our approach to the problems which confront the world, nor do we understand their approach. I sometimes think we could learn a lesson from our own history. After all, for years they were more or less outlawed among the nations, and the treatment we accorded them between the wars accounts in no small measure for the distrust and suspicion they now feel with regard to us. Except for some of their top leaders, and incidentally very few of them, none of the Russians has had any close contact either with the outside world or with the ideas we represent. I think we have to bear in mind that they came into power after a revolution

United Nations
which they had fomented by all possible means, including widespread conspiracy. If we know the history of revolutions I think we shall realize that for a period after a revolution the ideas which brought it about and the methods by which the revolution was made successful are the methods that follow a revolution. Even in our own British history, if you go back to the Stuart period you find the overthrow of Charles; Cromwell; then the restoration; the coming of James; the overthrow of James, and so on. All during that period you find a history of intolerance that seems to be common to revolutionary and post-revolutionary periods. Similar experiences, to a degree, followed the French revolution. And we have to bear in mind that on the foundation which was built up prior to and following the revolution is imposed a philosophy of Marxism, applied to the Russian situation. I think all this accounts for a great many of the difficulties with which the world is faced today. After all, the Soviet Union is a young nation in the field of the world diplomacy, and her leaders have not had the experience and training the leaders of the western nations have had. So I feel keenly that, while we must stand firmly by our democratic principles and traditions, we should endeavour at all times and everywhere to understand the background of the people with whom we are trying to come to an understanding at the present time. It seems to me, if we can do that, we shall be moving a long way toward a better understanding in the world.
This article 41 of the charter gives the security council certain powers, including the power to take measures exclusive of war, and commits us to participation in those measures. I hope we shall never have to use any of the enforcement measures provided in the charter. We may have to do so, but I hope not. In any event, I think it is wise, considering the state in which the world is now, that we should be properly prepared to do whatever may be necessary in order to promote peace, first, and prevent war if war is threatened, and to put down aggression should aggression occur. I sometimes think the people of today are unaware of the difficulty which faces mankind, and the threat which overshadows the world. When we think of the new weapons of war, and particularly the atomic weapons, we begin to realize that if war did come there are only two countries which conceivably could participate in such a war. Those nations are, of course, the United States and Russia; and neither, except for destroying the centres of population of the other, could achieve a successful invasion or the conquest of the
other. Perhaps that realization on the part of both may be one of the factors which will enable the world to preserve peace. No one can gain from the type of war that will come if the united nations organization fails. As I said this afternoon, while we may be some distance from any form of world government, world government must come if we are to have universal peace some time. I do not expect that will come in my lifetime or in the lifetime of hon. members of this House of Commons, though we strive to that end, but at least we have, within the united nations, an organization which may be a foundation upon which permanent peace can be built.
As far as Canada's part in this political and ideological struggle is concerned, I think we should take the middle view, the view that is being taken by the western European people and the people of Great Britain; that, instead of inflaming public opinion against the United States on the one hand or against Russia on the other, we should do all we can -and I think Canada can do a great deal- to bring about an understanding between these two great powers and among the united nations. As I said once before in the house, I was pleased that the head of the Canadian delegation, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent), was the first delegate at New York, at the second part of the first session of the assembly, to draw to the attention of the assembled nations the fact that we had not yet laid the foundations of security enforcement, if I may put it in that way; for Canada, and particularly those nations which are not the so-called great nations, have a tremendous stake in seeing to it that the security council operates without war.
As the leader of our delegation said in New York, unless we can devote to the building of homes and the improvement of the conditions of life of our people in our countries the amount we shall be compelled to devote for defensive purposes, and unless we are able to make this charter effective, we cannot in the days to come improve our standard of living as we would like to improve it. Instead of, as our people thought as they were fighting the war, and when the war ended, our being on the threshold of a newer and better age, we may sink down into the depths of despair and misery. That will be the result, unless we can make this organization work.
So I wanted to say tonight that we must try to bring about better understanding among nations, and particularly between the two giants which emerged from this war. I know it is exceedingly difficult to get our point of view into the Soviet Union; and
United Nations

sometimes I feel that perhaps the point of view of the Soviet union is not always placed accurately before our own people. One had only to be at those conferences to realize that very often the reports published, and particularly those in some sections of the United States press, with respect to discussions which took place in the various committees and the assembly gave a most distorted picture of what actually occurred in the discussions.
So far as the article and the bill before us are concerned, let me say that we support the bill because we believe it is another step in the promotion of peace and in Canada's support of the only organization to which we can look at this time for the preservation of peace in the world.
And I say to those critics of the united nations, and of the united nations charter, that when they criticize they should be prepared to say what they have to offer the world in its place. If there is nothing else, then it seems to me the best thing to do is to support what we have. It may not be as effective as we would like it to be; nevertheless I believe it is a step forward. Though it may be a difficult step, and may sometimes appear to a great many people, a feeble step, yet it is a step we ourselves should take with the rest of the world.
Therefore I say, Mr. Speaker, that we support the second reading of the bill.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to imagine all the things which are involved or which might be involved in Bill No. 132. What I find considerably more important, and perhaps embarrassing, is that I have not as yet been able to envision all the purposes for which the provisions of the bill might be used. I consider it my duty to find out these things before I say whether I will support the bill or not. There are implications in it which I certainly do not like. It may be that my fears are not well founded, but that can be known only after I have given the bill the most thorough investigation.
I will challenge anybody who has not been a participant in the sessions of the united nations to say at this stage just what is implied in the provisions of the bill.


John Horne Blackmore: Even they cannot do it.


Mr. LOW:: I am afraid I must agree with what the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) has said. Many things have been said in this debate-and it has been short, it is true-about peace, and about putting teeth
[Mr. ColdweJl.l
into international legislation to ensure peace.
I listened with keen attention to the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) and also to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell).
I must say that the group which I represent, and for which I certainly am speaking at this time, will take second place to no group in its desire for world peace. We are sincere in our desire for that condition. But I must say further that we take a realistic position with respect to the means by which peace shall be achieved.
Let me remind the house that peace does not stem from statutes, from sanctions exercised upon people, or from coercion. Peace resides in and springs from the hearts of men. The will to peace has to be cultivated in the hearts of men. The only satisfactory condition for world peace is that which can be found in finding out, by careful study and investigation what the causes of war are, and then removing them at the earliest possible time.
I would feel much happier about the united nations and the work it has done if I could have seen it giving much more of its time to a study of the causes of war, instead of watching it giving its undivided attention to other aspects of international relations such as force or sanctions, or ways of divesting nations of their sovereignty-which, in itself, I remind hon. members, is very often a cause of war.
I believe that the provisions of Bill No. 132 may have such far-reaching results that we, as responsible representatives of the people, should exercise the greatest care in becoming thoroughly informed about it, and about what it provides for. Further than that, I think we should do everything we can to see that the Canadian people are made fully aware of its implications.
I know there is widespread anxiety not only here in Canada but elsewhere in the world about the effectiveness of the united nations, about whether or not the united nations will be able to achieve what it set out to achieve, namely world peace. I find, as I talk to people wherever I go, that they have not much knowledge about it; they have not much information.
I recall that back in 1945 when the house was debating the united nations charter, and whether parliament should approve Canada's participation in the united nations, I pointed out what I believed were some of the dangers and some of the weaknesses in the charter. I suggested then that the only way the united nations could possibly be successful would be to have the undivided support of the people, not only of this country, but of every other

United Nations
country in the world participating in it. I suggested at that time that one means of mobilizing that support would be by means of the radio. In Canada we had the network of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation stretching across Canada, and we should have given over that radio network every bit of information it was possible to gather about the united nations, so as to allow the people to measure its possibilities, to judge of it and to get to understand it. I say once more that the most effective motive force for any organization designed to bring about world peace, such as the united nations, must come from the awakened conscience of the people. We cannot expect to impose peace by sanction or statute; it must come out of the people. I am concerned about getting information to the people, and I suggest that one of the best ways of informing the public is to have this bill go before the standing committee on external affairs. I support that suggestion whole-heartedly. I spoke to the minister about it the other day and he suggested he would give it consideration. I hope he has given it that consideration and will be ready to move that the bill be sent to the committee where we can examine witnesses, where representatives of the press can be present to give publicity to the information that may be brought out.
I understand that this bill was referred to the standing committee on external affairs in the other place but I searched everywhere for the proceedings of that committee and I was very much disappointed to find that such an important measure should be discussed and investigated without any record of the committee's proceedings being kept. I voice this in criticism of that other place. If they are to justify their existence surely it is their responsibility to provide a record of their proceedings, especially in connection with a matter of such importance as this bill and others that originate in that place and are sent here for our consideration. I believe I speak for my group when I say that we want to know all that it is possible to know about the bill and its implications before we can say whether or not we will support it. I have serious doubts as to whether it does not inn afoul of provincial rights, and I believe the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) suggested the same fears. I wonder if the minister, when he is making his rebuttal, will set our minds at rest on that point? This and many other questions ought to be fully investigated before hon. members attempt to express their judgment on the bill. Therefore I suggest
that- the Secretary of State for External Affairs give us the assurance that it will be sent to the committee on external affairs.


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I was hopeful that we would hear tonight a real formula for peace when the leader of the C.C.F. (Mr. Coldwell) said that we should beat our swords into ploughshares and our spears into pruning hooks. He should have gone on and given us a real formula for peace, but he did not. I am not one who claims that you can have an abiding peace on an economic and social security foundation, because foundations of that kind change with the country in which you live. If the leader of the C.C.F. had gone on a little farther with his quoting of Isaiah he would have found that even away back in Isaiah's time it was found that the foundation for the cure of war was to be found in the Prince of Peace. As Paul said, other foundations can no man lay. You can have all the money you could possibly use; you can have all the things you could possibly be surrounded with, but if you have not the source of peace in the individual heart you are not going to have peace in the nation. You can have that peace only by building on the one foundation. When the nations of the world come to that understanding, then we shall have peace at home and we shall have peace abroad.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, before the house finishes with this matter, there are several things which I consider it my duty to bring to the attention of the house. The hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) asked a question which I believe had a considerable effect upon hon. members. He asked:	What have
we to put in the place of the united nations? I should like to be granted the indulgence of the house for a while to say something concerning that matter. I think the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) put his finger on the root of the whole situation. I do not recall his exact words, but the thought I got from them was this:	It is just as
foolish to try to build an edifice to guarantee the peace of the world on unsound, unstable and unsatisfactory foundations economically and socially as it would be to try to build a New York sky-scraper on a bed of quicksand. The economic and social foundations which exist among men today are just as unstable and treacherous as a bed of quicksand. The objection which I have taken to this whole united nations situation since early 1945 has been based on the ground that no adequate attention has been given to these economic and social foundations
United Nations

which are so treacherous and which have caused such terrible trouble in the world during the last forty years.
I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to some matters which are very serious. Some of the material which I propose to present to the house tonight I have had in my hands for a year and a half. I have been doubtful as to whether or not I should put it on Hansard', but I have a feeling that the time has come to put some of this important material on the record so that it can be considered when this bill is being considered. This bill is supposed to be a measure to strengthen the united nations, the object being to enable the world to have peace. Let us examine the whole thing in the light of some of these facts.
First, as the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) said, let us find the cause of war. We do not need to go back any farther than the war from which we have just emerged. What caused that war? I am going into this in an effort to find out whether the thing we have established as the united nations has even a ghost's chance of dealing with the cause of war and preventing war. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar both expressed dissatisfaction with what has happened as regards the united nations up to the present time. There is a fundamental reason for the failure of that organization.
Why is Russia taking such a strong stand in the whole matter of the united nations? I am afraid it is done for two reasons. In the first place, the Russians seem to know more about essential fundamentals in trade than we seem to be able to get through our heads. Next, the Russians are not afraid to tell the truth and face the facts when they know them, and it seems to me that a good many of our people are afraid to tell the truth and face the facts.
What caused world war II? Let me turn to what brought Japan and the United States into conflict in the last world war. I shall have to refer to some documents to show what brought them to clash, but briefly I would say it was the fact that the United States insisted that the most favoured nation clause should apply to herself and Japan. Japan knew that if the most favoured nation clause were established as a fundamental basis for trade relations between herself and the LTnited States, the economic existence of Japan would be rendered an impossibility; and so they fought. I believe I can adduce evidence which will satisfy every hon. member, or at least it will give him food for thought. I turn, first of all, to the document of November 
26, 1941, a statement by Cordell Hull to the Japanese ambassador while they were negotiating. There is every indication in the words which were used that the Japanese were struggling even at that late date to avoid the calamity of war. I read from clause 4 of section 1 of the document-as usual the people who know all about these things are not listening. The second paragraph of the clause reads:
The government of Japan-
It is the United States speaking.
-and the government of the United States have agreed that toward eliminating chronic political instability, preventing recurrent economic collapse, and providing a basis for peace, they will actively support and practically apply the following principles in their economic relations with each other and with other nations and peoples:
(1)	The principle of non-discrimination in international commercial relations.
(2)	The principle of international economic cooperation and abolition of extreme nationalism as expressed in excessive trade restrictions.
(3)	The principle of non-discriminatory access by all nations to raw material supplies.
(4)	The principle of full protection of the interests of consuming countries and populations as regards the operation of international commodity agreements.
(5)	The principle of establishment of such institutions and arrangements of international finance-
Think of Bretton Woods!
-as may lend aid to the essential enterprises and the continuous development of all countries and may permit payments through processes of trade consonant with the welfare of all countries.
May I just point out to the members of the house how familiar those words sound in our ears-in our ears who have read the Dumbarton Oaks conference report and the Bretton Woods conference report. What the United States was insisting on in effect was the establishment practically of those two sets of proposals; and it was because Japan could not possibly accept those conditions that she resisted even by war.
Now I quote a little further on from the same document, clause 6 of section 2:
The government of the United States and the government of Japan will enter into negotiations for the conclusion between the United States and Japan of a trade agreement, based upon reciprocal most-favoured-nation treatment and reduction of trade barriers by both countries, including an undertaking by the United States to bind raw silk on the free list.
Now, Mr. Speaker and hon. members, it stands out as clear as the sun in a cloudless sky that what the United States insisted on was the most favoured nation clause. Have

you heard any word from the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) concerning that matter? Have you heard a single word from the member for Peel (Mr. Gray-don) concerning that matter? Have you heard a single word from any member of the Liberal party concerning that matter? Why is it there has been no discussion in this house of the cause of the last war? Can you imagine any hon. member of this house who is a medical doctor undertaking to cure a disease before he diagnoses the cause?


An hon. MEMBER:: They often do.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: We in this house and apparently in all the legislatures in all parts of the British commonwealth have been setting about to find a cure for the ills that afflict this generation and which resulted in two wars without giving any attention to the cause. No wonder the united nations arrangement is a disappointment-no wonder! And now it is proposed that this house put through a measure which is supposed to put teeth into the security council, which is to be guided in its thinking and its operations in this world by a group of men who apparently know nothing whatsoever about the causes of war and are in no way disposed to remove those causes, people apparently who are intent upon trying to deal with symptoms instead of the causes of disease.
I should like to say just a word about the people m the other place. I wanted to rise and ask the hon. member for Peel a question this afternoon while he was speaking, but I feared I might throw him off his line' of thought. I wanted to ask him this question: Where did he suppose the other place got this measure we now are discussing? Where did it come from? Did some member of the other place draft this bill? Who put it into the hands of the members in the other place? And who was the member in the other place who sponsored this bill and supported it? No wonder the hearings of the committee that investigated this bill were never printed! And here we are sitting here and paying no attention to important matters like that. Where was this bill drafted-in Canada or in the United States? That is important. The hon. member for Peel this afternoon almost let the cat out of the bag when he said that certain senators "were able to get certain changes." This bill was supposed to originate with the members of the other place. Yet the members of the other place had to struggle apparently to get changes in the bill! Surely the members of this house are not going to go into this thing with their eyes closed! Surely
United Nations
there is the handwriting on the wall! Surely there is ample cause for suspicion and anxiety in a procedure like that!
Let me go forward with the cause of world war II. I come now to what the Japanese say, just to show whether what I have indicated, was actually the cause of the war. Here is the reply which the Japanese ambassador put into the hands of the United States government. I am quoting from subclause 1 of clause 4 of the document put into the hands of the United States government at 2.20 p.m. on December 7, 1941:
The American government advocates in the name of world peace those principles favourable to it and urges upon the Japanese government the acceptance thereof. The peace of the world may be brought about only by discovering a mutually acceptable formula through recognition of the reality of the situation and mutual appreciation of one another's position. An attitude such as ignores realities and imposes one's selfish views upon others will scarcely serve the purpose of facilitating the consummation of negotiations.
That is so beautifully put, so humbly put, so clearly and so tersely put, that it is like a cry of anguish,


Mr. COTE (Matapedia-Matane):: I suppose Pearl Harbor happened under those terms.


John Horne Blackmore: If the hon. member will listen and not talk he will learn a lot. He is going to learn a whole lot more if he can only keep himself quiet. All he knows about the cause of the last war could be put in a nutshell.


Antoine-Philéas Côté: Are we to take the word of the Japanese for it?


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member needs to keep himself quiet and patient. I am not asking him to take anybody's word. He can draw his own conclusions. He has intelligence; let him use it.
The hon. member raised the question of what the Japanese said. I challenge the hon. member to show that what is stated in my quotation from the Japanese note is not exactly what the United States is doing today over in Geneva. I challenge him to show that that is not exactly the purpose of Bretton Woods; that that is not exactly the purpose of Dumbarton Oaks and that it is not exactly the purpose of the San Francisco conference and the united nations agreement. I challenge any hon. member who thinks he can answer the challenge. I would advise him to get himself well prepared before he attempts it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I raise a question of order? The hon. member has made some
United Nations

allegations and statements in regard to procedure with reference to the present legislation. I want to assure him that this was considered by the elected members of the government of Canada who represent democracy in Canada. Purely on the question of expedition this legislation was sent, as we sometimes do, to the other house to be referred back to this house. The hon. member is talking the most crazy nonsense I ever heard in the house.


John Horne Blackmore: All I have to say is that if this was originated by the administration in Canada it stands as one of the most potent condemnations-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And responsible to the house.


John Horne Blackmore: -of the administration of Canada that can be conceived.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: All right; try to defeat it.


John Horne Blackmore: I am not afraid to meet my hon. friend, but I do not want smart alec or ignorant remarks; I want hon. members who think they can answer my arguments to produce documents in proof of what they are saying as I am doing. It will require documents to answer what I am saying.	.


James Horace King: Order. I should like to suggest to the hon. member who has the floor that he confine his remarks to the general principle of the bill which is before the house. The purpose of this bill is to empower the government of Canada to carry out the obligations of Canada under section 41 of the charter of the united nations signed at San Francisco on June 26, 1945. I would ask the hon. gentleman to confine his remarks to the principle of the bill.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, up to the present time no hon. member who has thus far spoken has spoken on the principle of the bill. I do not think anybody knows just what the principle is. In a general way, so far as I can gather, the principle of the bill is that we are putting tremendous powers in the hands of an organization with a policy we know nothing about, an organization which we can in no way make responsible to this parliament, the security council, an organization concerning the personnel of which we know nothing and over which we can exercise no influence; and yet we propose to put almost limitless power into the hands of that organization to perform in Canada. I am raising the question as to whether we can afford to do that, considering all the 
facts which I am adducing. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I maintain that I am speaking exactly on the principle of the bill.
May I read the closing remarks of the aforementioned Japanese answer to the United States:
Thus, the earnest hope of the Japanese government to adjust Japanese-American relations and to preserve and promote the peace of the Pacific through cooperation with the American government has finally been lost.
The Japanese government regrets to have to notify hereby the American government that in view of the attitude of the American government it cannot but consider that it is impossible to reach an agreement through further negotiations.
Which, Mr. Speaker, as clearly as words can convey, indicates to us what caused world war II. Yet not a word is said about that cause or how to remove it. The assumption is that Japan was only foolish, just as we contended that Hitler was a madman-[DOT]


Humphrey Mitchell: Was he not?


John Horne Blackmore: Great states do not go to war on pretexts like that. States of well nigh hundreds of millions of people do not take fearful risks just because they have whims or happen to be led by madmen. Why, surely, two terrible wars within the very lives of most of us must have impressed that on- our minds. There is a fundamental cause somewhere. What is the cause?


An hon. MEMBER:: Russia.


John Horne Blackmore: Two documents from which I have read excerpts indicate clearly what was the cause of the last war.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on, but I am half afraid that I am devoting too much time to this. I shall, however, read what Cordell Hull said on December 7, 1941, after he read the Japanese document from which I have quoted.
I will maintain that no hon. member who will read through the Japanese statement carefully and in an unbiased manner would be unimpressed by the realism of the Japanese statement and the moderation of the words. He will be impressed by it.
After the American Secretary of State read two or three pages he asked the ambassador whether this document was presented under instructions of the Japanese government. The ambassador replied that it was. The secretary as soon as he had finished reading the document, turned to the Japanese ambassador and said:
"I must say that in all my conversations with you during the last nine months I have never uttered one word of untruth. This is borne out absolutely by the record. In all my fifty years of public service I have never seen a document that was more crowded with infamous falsehoods and distortions on a scale so huge that I never imagined until today that any government on this planet was capable of uttering them."

United Nations


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Horne Blackmore: Hon. members applaud Cordell Hull's remarks. That is the reaction of men who do not know. Now hear the reaction of a man who does know. Hear now the statement of a man who knows realities concerning international trade. The Japanese statement to which Cordell Hull in those words so slightingly referred is correct and accurate in every phrase.


Mr. IRVINE:: What was the date of this document?


John Horne Blackmore: December 7, 1941.


William Irvine: Was not the last war in progress at that time?


John Horne Blackmore: That is right, but it was not known at the time. It does not alter the truth of the remarks that are made. I know what is in the hon. member's mind. I am glad he brought it up. I had hoped that someone would. The question will be raised, had not the Japanese made up their minds to fight? I am going to read another document which will satisfy hon. members on that question. The question would be, did the Japanese just make up their minds to conquer the world?


James Horace King: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member.


John Horne Blackmore: Will you please speak loud enough, Mr. Speaker, for me to hear you.


James Horace King: The hon. member's remarks are not relevant to the bill which is before the house at this time. If he reads the bill and the explanatory note the hon. member will realize that his remarks are not relevant to the bill which is before the house. If he does not confine his remarks to the general principle of the bill I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.


John Horne Blackmore: I certainly do not want to come in conflict with Your Honour, but I wish to say to you and to hon. members that the things I am saying have a more potent bearing on the subject matter of the discussion than any other material that can be brought before them tonight.


James Horace King: Order.
Mr.- BLACKMORE: The astounding thing is that hon. members can talk any kind of claptrap in the house and get away with it, but the minute any hon. member attempts to deal with realities he is not permitted to do so.


James Horace King: Order. I did not say that the hon. member's remarks were not important ; I say they are not relevant to the general principle of the bill. I am sorry, but the hon. member will have to confine his remarks to the principle of the bill as the rules require that they should.


John Horne Blackmore: I shall have to refer only to the statement that I was going to make. I ask hon. members who are interested -and everybody in the house is vitally interested-to get the report of the United States Army Pearl Harbor Board issued October. 20, 1944, and published on August 29, 1945, -it will be in the New York Times in our library-and read the conclusions especially No. 1 of C (Responsibilities). There they will find the following:
However, war with Japan was inevitable and imminent because of irreconcilable disagreements between the Japanese empire and the American government.
Mr. Speaker, the main "irreconcilable disagreement" was over the most-favoured-nation clause.


An hon. MEMBER:: What has that to do with the bill? '


John Horne Blackmore: It has a great deal to do with it, because the bill is supposed to deal with an organization that is supposed to prevent war. My argument is that it is just utterly futile to think you can prevent war when you do not take any means to remove the cause of war. Therefore the first thing you have to do is to find the cause.
I am going to pass on from there to another aspect of the matter. I am afraid I shall not be permitted to read another most important passage. I will merely refer to it, because I know a good many hon. members will want to read it. There is an excellent book written by Colonel L. S. Amery, who was in the British war cabinet and who certainly knew about matters of trade. There is no man in the British empire who knows -more about such things than the Right Hon. L. S. Amery, C.H. He wrote a book called the "Washington Loan Arrangements".


An hon. MEMBER:: Is he a brother of the spy?


John Horne Blackmore: Those who read
Hansard will realize what sort of silly, nonessential remarks a member has to deal with when he tries to discuss a serious matter in this house.
In this book, the "Washington Loan Agreements", which is right on the cause of war and right on the problems of peace, right up to date, was published in February, 1946. There is a copy in the library; I urge hon. members to read it. I would refer them to the introduction at page 5, starting with paragraph 2, "What we are entitled to object to," and reading right through to page 8 at the end of the second paragraph to the words "of our national economic policy." In that statement
United Notions

the Right Hon. L. S. Amery points out that the United States is still following exactly the same policy which precipitated the war between herself and Japan, the policy which rendered it utterly impossible to avoid that conflict. With the United States pursuing that policy, do we sit in this house and imagine that we can gain world peace by establishing an organization to take away the sovereignty of the British nations? Surely we cannot be deluded to that extent!
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, speaking of the UNO, asked this question: what can we put in its place? Since he has asked the question, I presume you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, to answer it. If not, I will refrain from further speech. I would, however, lay down what we can do to replace the iniquitous united nations arrangement. I say to hon. members that, as the days go by, they will find the united nations organization less and less valuable, more and more disappointing. as regards its ability to prevent war. But they will find that something horrible and insidious will develop increasingly among them due to its powers to influence the life of this nation and to clutter up its activities, impairing its freedom of action, and in various other ways making it impossible for us to be prosperous or to prepare for and to fight the next war. They will find that happening to a degree which will simply sicken them in every fibre of their being.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I ask the hon. member a question?


John Horne Blackmore: As many as you like.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does the hon. gentleman agree with the policies of the Right Hon. L. S. Amery in regard to the dominions, to the commonwealth and to India?


John Horne Blackmore: In answer to the right hon. member I would say that the question he has asked has nothing to do with the matter and, if I were to discuss it in connection with this bill, I would be out of order. However I would ask the right hon. member to do this. I hope he has read the book. If he has not, I would ask him to read the passages I have indicated in the "Washington Loan Agreement".


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have read it.


John Horne Blackmore: I would ask him then to be prepared at any time to discuss the matter with me-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am ready right now.


John Horne Blackmore: -and I will answer him point by point. I will challenge him to discuss with me, point after point, every

statement that the Right Hon. L. S. Amery makes in those passages to which I have referred and show me where Amery is wrong. He cannot do so. Instead, I will prove to him that Amery is right, and I will do so by reference to what is going on in Geneva, where the United States is trying to beat down the British preferential tariff, which is the only means available to us of protecting our economy in the British commonwealth. The United States, I say, is doing everything in its power to break down that economy, to destroy it. Let the minister prepare himself and, if he can, challenge the statement I have just made.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do so now.


John Horne Blackmore: Wait until we get a good chance in committee and I will take the right hon. gentleman right to the floor, when he will get the finest spanking he has ever had in his life.
May I turn now to the question of what to do instead of having the united nations organization. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar despairs about it. He seems to think that if it fails we shall have the atomic bomb on us, and all the other horrible things he fears. Well, in the last war we could have used gas and utterly destroyed the world, but we did not; we could have waged bacterial warfare and utterly destroyed mankind, but we did not. I presume in the next world war we shall have tile atomic bomb, which could be used then to destroy the peoples of the world, but we shall not use it. People have too much fun fighting and killing one another to kill themselves off completely. They will not do that. The hon. member need not despair so much. If, however, the fundamental causes of war are not removed, men will fight, no matter what they fight with, whether it be atomic bombs or their teeth or fingernails, because they will have to fight in order to live.
The hon. member asks what we could do to replace the U.N.O. The other night I made a speech on this question. I know I shall not be allowed to read from it now, but I would refer hon. members to the remarks I made on. May 16. as recorded at page 3170 of Hansard, where I answered that question in the speech I then made. I pointed out that it would be perfectly feasible to organize the nations of good will in the world under an organization like the British commonwealth, in which every nation has its sovereignty, but in which every nation, because of a common purpose and understanding, will stand together with the rest in order to accomplish great ends.

United Nations
There is not a nation in the world, as far as I know, that would not join such an organization if the matter were put plainly before it. As I pointed out the other night, this is the kind of thing that Anthony Eden advised. Let us have an organization built upon a blueprint after the fashion of the British commonwealth. He certainly did not imply any support of the monstrous organization that was erected in the united nations organization, or such a horrible engine as the security council, which threatens to deprive the nations of their sovereignty.
If we have an organization like the British commonwealth, which we can have if we will, and then adopt the nine principles which I advocated the other night, some of them too far advanced for many members of the house to accept, but wThich nevertheless will be found important and sound, then we shall have an alternative.
Before I go into that, however, I should like to point out for the information of hon. members-and I believe all hon. members will agree with me-that the fundamental and inevitable cause of war is economic, and the fundamental, economic cause is the fact that, as nations trade, some of them fall into adverse trade balances and debt to others for the reason that they cannot keep their people from buying more goods from those other nations than those other nations will buy from them. We in Canada are witnessing that process right at the present time, even with our vast resources around us. What, then, must be the pathetic condition of a nation like Belgium, or Holland, or Czechoslovakia, or Yugoslavia when it undertakes to protect its economy? What must have been the position of Italy, with its
47.000.	000 people on their barren slopes. What must have been the position of Hitler with
66.000.	000 crowded in an area not one-third as large as Ontario. The fear of an adverse trade balance was insistent, that and the establishment of unrepayable international debt, debt that can be repaid only in goods.
Take Canada as an illustration. We fall into debt to the United States, and we cannot pay because the United States will not accept our goods, which is the only means we have of repaying the debt. They put up tariff barriers, establish quotas, and by several other means prevent us from paying, which means that they put us into a state of unrepayable debt. When nations suffer that sort of thing they cannot avoid war. It is either war or utter national economic destruction. They prefer the war. There we have the fundamental cause of wars. How can you overcome this adverse trade balance situation and this unrepayable debt situation? The other night I laid down the principles on which you must organize your society. The first was this, that each nation retains its complete sovereignty to order its affairs in accordance with the will of its people.


Humphrey Mitchell: Oh, dear.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, I know the Minister of Labour is quite like a fish out of water when he gets on anything but labour.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am tired tonight,


John Horne Blackmore: I know you are tired; that is one of the reasons you never learn anything about how to govern a country with respect to these trade matters. If the cabinet is made up of people who know as little about economics and finance as the Minister of Labour knows-well, anyway, principle No. 2 was that each state undertakes to maintain adequate armed forces.
3. Each power undertakes to go to the aid of any other member of the association of nations which is the victim of armed aggression. This is right along the line the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar wanted to hear, but the hon. gentleman has left the chamber. He asked for something and then ran away so that he could not get it.
Principle No. 4 is, each member undertakes to prohibit its nationals from owning or controlling any property or economic undertaking in another sovereign country. I would ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) who is in his seat, if he were free to answer, how much of the difficulty in connection with Canada's trade balance is the result of the tremendous amount of United States capital invested in Canada. A very great deal of the trouble arises from that factor. This principle 4 is intended to overcome that factor in our international trade position.
5.	Each nation undertakes not to export goods to any other nation, except in payment for imports from that nation, without the consent of that nation's government. If that principle were established, how many nations would lose all fear of economic penetration and conquest! While the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) was speaking this afternoon and mentioning certain kinds of aggression, I interjected the words "industrial aggression." If you adopted that clause you would avoid industrial aggression and the fear which results from it, which is one of the direct causes of war.
6.	Each state undertakes to receive payment in goods and services for any debt owing to its nationals. What a glorious blessing it
United, Nations

would be to all the members of the British commonwealth if the United States would come out frankly and say, "We will do that. If we sell goods in your country, Canada, and you cannot pay us, we will accept goods in return, let them be of any kind."


James Horace King: Order. I have called the attention of the hon. member three times to the fact that his remarks should be relevant to the legislation now before the house. Now I would ask him to kindly resume his seat.


Solon Earl Low: May I be permitted to raise a question of privilege? I know Your Honour is trying to be absolutely fair, but I am afraid you may be unaware of the schedule which is at the end of this bill.


James Horace King: I am sure the hon. member will admit that the Chair and the members of the house have been very generous.


Solon Earl Low: No, sir, under the circumstances I cannot admit that, because the hon. member has not spoken for his forty minutes.


James Horace King: I am sorry, but I have decided that bis remarks are not relevant to the bill.


Solon Earl Low: Is that your ruling, Mr. Speaker? If so, I am forced to challenge it.


James Horace King: I am sorry, but I must call the attention of the hon. member-


Solon Earl Low: We simply challenge your ruling.


James Horace King: I would hope that hon. members would collaborate with the Chair. Three times I called the attention of the hon. gentleman to the fact that his remarks were not relevant to the bill which is before the house. If the hon. member will read the explanatory note and what is contained in article 41 he will realize perfectly well that the remarks made by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) were not relevant to the bill. I believe it is the duty of an hon. member to abide by rulings of the Chair and to help the Speaker of the house by doing so.


Solon Earl Low: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, would you allow me to read what it says :n article 41, in support of my contention that the hon. member was completely in order, before I challenge your ruling?


Mr. LALONDE:: You are challenging the ruling.


Solon Earl Low: I have already done so, but in deference to His Honour the Speaker I am asking for one moment to explain what I mean. I am reading from page 2 of the bill, the schedule which appears at the end, setting 
out article 41; and this Bill No. 132 purports to be an amendment to article 41 of the united nations charter.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Solon Earl Low: That is what it says. Read the bill.


Mr. KNOWLES:: We cannot amend the charter in this house.


Solon Earl Low: Article 41 says:
The security council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions-


Maurice Lalonde: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman-


Solon Earl Low: I am speaking to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you ask the hon. member to resume his seat?


Maurice Lalonde: Oh, well, I will.


Solon Earl Low: I have the floor. I repeat:
The security council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the members of the united nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations-*
That is trade relations
These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations-
That must include trade relations. It is an economic sanction.
-and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
I contend that this clearly envisages the possibility of the application of sanctions against an offending nation, which may include trade sanctions. The hon. member for Lethbridge is discussing trade as one of the causes of war, which certainly must have application and must be related to the principle of this bill. So I would suggest that you give the hon. member an opportunity to complete his forty minutes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I suggest in a very friendly spirit that we forget technicalities and get on with the -work of the house. There is an old song I used to know in the first war entitled, "The more we get together, the happier we will be."


Solon Earl Low: But you are taking up more time than the hon. member would need to finish.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: I am raising another point of order. At the time he was interrupted the hon. member was quoting a

United Nations
great authority-it was himself, it is true- but quoting from a speech made during a previous debate this session, which certainly is out of order in this House of Commons.


Gordon Graydon: May I raise a point of order. I think Your Honour has gone perhaps a little far afield, if I may say so with great deference, in view of the subject matter which is being discussed. I really think the hon. member for Lethbridge should have an opportunity to conclude his speech. He has not very much longer to go; this is not a very partisan matter, and I think the fewer difficulties we have in the debate, the better. I can quite appreciate Your Honour's position; I am not challenging it, nor am I even criticizing it, but perhaps we might inject a little of the milk of human kindness into this debate and let the hon. member go on.


James Horace King: Hon. members will realize that I called the attention of the hon. member three times to the fact that his remarks were not relevant to the bill now before the house. If the Speaker did not intervene and require the hon. member to resume his seat I wonder where hon. members would find any authority to enforce the rules of the house. I would ask them to assist their Speaker. I should be very grateful if hon. members would accept my decision and continue with the debate.


John Horne Blackmore: May I say a word in my own defence? I would just like to say-


James Horace King: I have asked the hon. member to resume his seat, and I would request the next hon. member to address the Chair.
YEAS Messrs:
Abbott	Lafontaine
Bauer	Lalonde
Beaudoin	Leger
Belzile	McCann
Bertrand (Laurier)	McCulloch (Pictou)
Bertrand (Prescott)	McGarry
Blanchette	Mclvor
Bradette	Mackenzie
Brown	MacLean
Chevrier	Marier
Claxton	Matthews (Brandon)
Cote (Matapedia-	Maybank
Matane)	Mayhew
Croll	Mitchell
Dechene	Moore
Denis	Mutch
Dion (Lake St. John-	Nicholson
Roberval)	Raymond (Wright)
Farquhar	Reid
Fournier (Hull)	Richard (Gloucester)
Fournier (Maison-	Richard (Ottawa
neuve-Rosemont)	East)
Gauthier (Portneuf)	Rinfret
Gibson (Hamilton	Ross (Hamilton
West) Gillis	East) St. Laurent
Gladstone Golding Grant	Sinclair (Vancouver North)
Hartt	Stuart (Charlotte)
Healy	Townley-Smith
Ilsley	Tremblay
Isnor .	T ucker
Jaenicke	Viau
Jean	Warren
Jutras	Whitman
Knowles	Winters-66.
++NAYS


Solon Earl Low: I certainly do not like that at all, Mr. Speaker. I must challenge your ruling.


James Horace King: The question before the house is an appeal from the Speaker's decision. We have before the house the second reading of Bill No. 132. The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) had the floor. The Speaker called his attention three times to the fact that on second reading of a bill the hon. member who has the floor should discuss only the general principle of the bill. His attention was again called to the fact that on second reading of the bill the discussion should be relevant to the bill before the house; and also to the fact that he was referring to a former debate. After three times the hon. member for Lethbridge was asked to resume his seat. Then the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) rose and appealed from the decision of the Speaker.
Archibald
Argue
Barrett
Blackmore
Blair
Bowerman
Bradshaw
Brooks
Bryce
Burton
Campbell
Castleden
Charlton
Coldwell
Cruickshank
Fair
Fraser
Fulton
Gibson (Comox-Alberni) Graydon Green Hackett Hansell H arkness Hazen Herridge
Messrs:
Hlynka
Homuth
Jackman
Johnston
Knight
Kuhl
Low
McCuaig
Macdonnell (Muskoka-Ontario)
McKay
MacNicol
Marshall
Matthews (Kootenay East)
Merritt
Quelch
Ross (St. Paul's)
Shaw
Stokes
Webb
White (Hastings-Peterborough) Wright Wylie
Zaplitny-49.
United Nations


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: I was paired with the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Ashby). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain your ruling.


Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford City):: I was paired with the hon. member for London (Mr. Manross). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain your ruling.


Mr. HARRIS (Grey-Bruce):: I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain your ruling.


Norman Jaques: I was paired with the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Gourd). Had I voted, I would have voted against your ruling.
(Translation):


Mr. GAGNON:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Cote). Had I voted, I would have voted against your ruling.
(Text):


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I shall keep the house from coming to the question for only a few minutes, but in view of the fact that the united nations has been referred to as an iniquitous organization I feel that something else ought to be said before this debate closes. I for one am aware of the fact that the united nations structure as it now stands has certain shortcomings, that improvements are needed, and it is also true, as the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) has said, that we should do everything we can to muster popular support for this people's organization. But it must be pointed out that the world would be in a sorry state if there were not some hope in the united nations. The fact is that for all its shortcomings it is grappling with some of the fundamental problems of war and peace. I want to refer in one sentence to the fact that an integral part of the united nations set-up is the economic and social council which is dealing with these fundamental problems.
It seems to me that the principle of the bill before us is so clear that there ought not to have been any necessity for arguing the point, nor should there have been the straying that has been evident during the course of this debate. We are not debating at this time the charter of the united nations. That charter has already been agreed to by some fifty-five nations, members of the organization, and not only has Canada signed the charter, but its signature has been approved by a unanimous vote by both houses of parliament. I submit, therefore, that we are not 
now arguing the merits of the charter nor the merits of article 41. One of the articles in that charter is article 25, which reads:
The members of the united nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the security council in accordance with the present charter.
The principle of the bill before us is simply this: Is this parliament prepared to give the government of the day the necessary constitutional power to carry out a commitment we have already made? In the interests of international organization, in the interests of the wider sovereignty it provides, in the interests of world peace, I am glad that the government of the day has brought this measure before us, and I believe that it should receive the unanimous support of the house.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Speaker, some hon. members have suggested that the bill should be referred to the standing committee on external affairs, and the government has no objection to its being examined before that committee. I therefore move that the bill be now referred to the standing committee on external affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 177, to amend the Penitentiary Act, 1939.
Howard Charles Green: Is the minister not making a statement?


Mr. ILSLEY:: I made a long statement on the resolution.


Mr. F. E. JAENICKE (Kindersley):: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the bill before us deals with two main principles. One is the. change from three commissioners to one commissioner and two deputies, and the other is to include the words "prison reformatories" in the term "penitentiaries".
No doubt this bill is designed to implement a recent decision of the government, presumably on the recommendation of the commissioner as it appears in his report which was tabled during the present session. I should like to quote from pages 8 and 9 of that report of the. commissioner, General R. B. Gibson. He says:
(a)	The royal commission proposed the appointment of a prison commission composed of three members to administer the penal system of Canada responsible directly to the Minis-

Penitentiary Act
ter of Justice. It is evident that in making this recommendation the royal commission had in mind its further recommendation that the federal government take over the administration of all the prisons in Canada, thus centralizing the control of the Canadian penal system under the government of Canada. As will be stated later, it is not 5ret considered practicable to give effect to this recommendation and the government has recently decided that for the present it is preferable to entrust the administration of the penitentiaries of Canada to a single commissioner assisted by two deputy commissioners, with a headquarters organization consisting of the inspectors and staff of the present penitentiaries branch, the inspectors being reclassified as assistant commissioners.
(b)	It is proposed that one deputy commissioner will be primarily charged with the selection. training, assessment and further reconstruction of the staffs of the penitentiaries and with the organization and supervision of a training school for penitentiary officers. He will also be responsible for the supervision and development of the educational facilities in the institutions under the control of the dominion government.
(cl It is proposed that the second deputy commissioner will be primarily charged with supervision and development of the medical and psychiatric services, physical training and recreational facilities as well as the development of research and statistics to assess the adenuacy and results of present and proposed methods of correctional treatment.
While the commissioner's report presumes . to deal with implementing the recommendations of the royal commission presided over by Mr. Justice Archambault, there is a change from three commissioners to one commissioner, and therefore it is a serious departure from the recommendations of the Archambault commission. As I understand the situation, the recommendation for a three-man commission was adopted in the enactment of chapter 6 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1939, and in enacting this measure, which is the present Penitentiary Act, which by the way with the exception of one or two sections has not yet been proclaimed, the main principle was the appointment of a three-man commission. I read from the debates of the House of Commons of 1939, at page 1472 of Hansard, where the then minister of justice, the Right Hon. Mr. Lapointe, introduced the resolution preceding that legislation and reading as follows:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a commission with power under the Minister of Justice, to administer, control and manage the penitentiaries; to provide for salaries of the commissioners and assistant commissioners: and, generally, to repeal and reenact with consequential amendments the Penitentiary Act.
Later on, in explanation of his resolution, the then minister of justice said:
It will be-
That is the new act.
-the Penitentiary Act substantially as it is today in the statute, except that it provides for the establishment of a commission of three to replace the superintendent of penitentiaries.
The commission to be appointed was, I presume, to be a commission of three men and decisions were to be made by three commissioners. In the case of a disagreement I presume the majority would prevail. The new enactment before us this evening sets aside this important principle, and if the new enactment were adopted the commission would consist of just one commissioner and two deputy commissioners, who would simply obey the orders of the commissioner and perform the duties assigned by him. I think this is a grievous mistake which I should like the Minister of Justice to reconsider. There is no question that three men are better than one, speaking generally; but particularly in this case it is of the utmost importance that the decisions should not be just the opinions of one man.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Would the hon. member say that fifteen would be better than three?


Frank Eric Jaenicke: Not necessarily. We deal here with human beings who, it is true, have run foul of the law. They are still human beings and many factors must be considered in their treatment, both as to punishment and as to their rehabilitation.
I have no criticism to offer of General Gibson's appointment. I understand and I have heard that he is an energetic and capable person; but, Mr. Speaker, is it not strange that when the appointment is made of a superintendent or of any other high official under the Penitentiary Act and in the penitentiary service we cannot think of anyone except a military man. From the results of their administration of penitentiaries prior to the Archambault report, they have not exactly covered themselves with glory, as the report of the Archambault commission would indicate. Could not the minister think of some penologist or some similar expert to head the proposed commission or at least to be a member of it? I presume that a military man was picked because we have to have discipline in our penal institutions and military men are naturally reputed to be good disciplinarians. While I do not admit that discipline, at least as I understand the term, is the main factor in the treatment of our prisoners, yet it is an important one. I have no objection to a military man being one of the three members of the commission with the other two being trained in penology, psychology, criminology, social service or other similar branches of knowledge.
Penitentiary Act

This matter was brought up in the debate in 1939, and the then minister of justice seemed to have the same idea. I quote from his remarks at page 1477 of Hansard of 1939. This is what the then minister of justice said:
I can assure my hon. friend that these men will not be selected because of political affiliations. We will try to have men who are expert in this work. It has been urged for some time that there should be a medical man on the staff of the penitentiaries, an expert in mental diseases and that sort of thing. The idea is to have three men at the head of our penal system whose names and abilities will be a guarantee to the people of Canada that this very important branch of the administration is being looked after properly.
I think that is what the Arehambault commission had principally in mind when it so strongly recommended the appointment of a three-man commission. To emphasize this point, let me quote from the Arehambault report at pages 342 and 343. This is what the Arehambault. commission has to say:
In our present system the problem of penal administration is too large in scope and too serious in results to be left in the hands of one man. It is noteworthy, as a matter of record, that Canada is practically the only country where the penal system is not administered by some kind of commission or board.
I may say that this same paragraph was also quoted by the then minister of justice in 1939 in support of his resolution at that time. I continue to quote from the Archam-bault report:
In Great Britain, the prison commission is composed of a chairman and, two other commissioners. one administrative and the other medical, and is reenforced by four assistant commissioners, one of whom acts as secretary.
Then on page 343:
Under this system the continuity of policy can be maintained and the control of prisons, though subject to the will of parliament, is divorced from the changing views of party policy. Each member of the commission is responsible for his own share of the work of the department. Differences of opinion may arise in the course of the commission's discussions but. to date, it has not been found necessary on any occasion to bring a question to a vote for settlement.
The act of 1939 differs very little from the old Penitentiary Act, being chapter 154 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927. Its important difference is the setting up of the commission in the place of the one superintendent. This important change is now to be discarded and the old method of a one man czar to administer our penal institutions is to be readopted. The main difference is that, instead of calling him a superintendent, we shall now call him a commissioner. I am 
afraid that I cannot give my support to a step which, I believe, is a retreat from a former more advanced policy.
When I first read General Gibson's report my reaction was favourable, but when I had more time for study any favourable impression was soon dissipated. I have not the time to go fully into every phase of the report about which I might offer criticism or disagreement, but I shall confine myself to efforts in making suggestions or recommendations as to how we might accomplish or make a start in unifying our penal system.
When General Gibson says, as I quoted a few moments ago-
It is evident that in recommending the three-man commission tire royal commission had in mind its further recommendation that the federal government take over the administration of all prisons in Canada thus centralizing the control of the Canadian penal system under the government of Canada.
-I wish with great respect to differ from the general in that regard. The three-man commission was recommended, irrespective of whether or not we had a unified or centralized penal system throughout Canada.
The last paragraph of that section of the royal commission's report dealing with the recommendation of the three-man commission reads as follows, and may be found on page 344 of the report:
The prison commission, as recommended, would perform the functions now performed by the superintendent and three inspectors. It would have power to appoint staffs, and would act as a central parole board. The members should be removable only for cause.
I therefore maintain that the recommendations are not interdependent. What does the commissioner say about the unification of the penal system? I quote from his report on pages 14 and 15:
(a)	The royal commission recommended that the Canadian penal system should be centralized under the control of the government of Canada, with the federal authorities taking charge of all the prisons in Canada, the provinces retaining only a sufficient number to provide for offenders against provincial statutes, prisoners on remand, and those serving short sentences.
(b)	Under the British North America Act legislative authority for the establishment, maintenance and management of penitentiaries is assigned to the parliament of Canada, whereas the provincial legislatures have authority to make laws in relations to the establishment, maintenance and management of public and reformatory prisons in and for the province. It thus appears that while the provincial legislatures alone have legislative authority to provide for reformatory institutions in and for their respective provinces, the establishment or acquisition of reformatory institutions with dominion wide scope is not excluded from the sphere of the government of Canada.

Penitentiary Act
(c)	The royal commission suggested that centralization night be accomplished by two methods:
(i)	by amending the criminal code, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act to change the minimum term for which a convicted person may be sentenced to a penitentiary to a period of less than two years; or
(ii)	by an agreement being made between the dominion and the provinces for the former to take over the administration of provincial penal institutions, in order that persons committed to prison for terms of less than two years might be committed to federal institutions.
(d)	It is evident that in the present state of the law any comprehensive change in the control of penal institutions can only be reached by agreement between the dominion and provincial governments.
While I cannot wholly concur in the conclusions of the commissioner as set forth in that last sentence, what has he done to see whether agreement between the dominion and provincial governments can be reached?
On page 3 of the report he speaks of many visits to provincial institutions, and informal discussions with provincial officials on matters of penal administration and policy, but the report is silent as to whether these discussions pertained to a unified system, and what were the reactions of the provinces, or what were their respective views on the matter?
There is a movement of reform in many of the provinces today, and one would think the provinces would be only too willing to cooperate with the dominion. Indeed, one paragraph on page 11 of the report seems to indicate that the maritime provinces are only too anxious to cooperate. I quote from page 11 of Commissioner Gibson's report:
In the maritime provinces there is at present nothing between the county gaols and the penitentiary at Dorchester, New Brunswick. The royal commission recommended the establishment of a central prison farm for the maritime provinces to afford better facilities for the confinement and reformation of prisoners serving sentences of less than two years than are available in the county gaols. This proposal is now under discussion with the provinces, who have suggested that such an institution be operated on their behalf by the dominion government, [f satisfactory arrangements can be made for ihe establishment of such an institution, with senarate facilities for dealing with young offenders, it will provide improved facilities for the classification and segregation of offenders in the maritime provinces.
I will say that if the provinces are in that mood, if the other provinces feel the same as the maritime provinces-and I have reason to believe they do-we should proceed along those lines immediately and quit worrying about the British North America Act.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Will the hon. member give me any reasons he has for thinking that they do? I have been looking for such reasons for a long time.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: The report says that this proposal is now under discussion with the provinces, and they suggest that such an institution be operated on their behalf by the dominion government.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is, the maritime provinces. To what other provinces does the hon. member refer? What other provinces want us to go into their field?


Frank Eric Jaenicke: I said the commissioner's report might have indicated what other provinces had made suggestions, or what suggestions they had made. I do not know. The report does not say, although it does say that the commissioner has visited all the other provinces. I have an idea that the proposed amendment to the definition of "penitentiary" to include prison reformatories has reference to the situation in the maritimes, to which I referred in the quotation, although I am convinced that the definition, as it now stands in the act is sufficient to include prison reformatories such as have been under discussion between the maritimes and the commissioner on behalf of the dominion.
We cannot unify the present penal system all at once. I admit that, but I think we can make an immediate start such as the proposed action in the maritimes and follow it up with other provinces which might be willing to cooperate. The report contains come notable proposals on segregation and treatment of young offenders, and it will be of interest to quote some sections. First, I would refer to page 10, paragraph (b):
As a first step in developing a plan of segregation, it is proposed to provide in Kingston penitentiary in the east and in Manitoba penitentiary in the west for the detention of incorrigible and intractable prisoners whose conduct and anti-social attitude makes it desirable to separate them from the normal prison population in other institutions.
I commend this. Later on, on the same page, in paragraph (d) I quote:
It is proposed to develop Collin's Bay penitentiary in the east and Saskatchewan penitentiary in the west as institutions for the treatment of young convicts and the reformable type of prisoner.
I also endorse this. Then on the same page, in paragraph (e):
The situation in the province of Quebec must be dealt with as a separate problem because of the difficulty and undesirability of transferring persons who speak the French language to institutions staffed by English-speaking personnel.
Penitentiary Act

At present St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary is filled to its capacity of 1,100 and contains in its population some 165 young convicts under the age of 21 years. A population of 1,100 is too large to be handled efficiently. Your commissioner therefore recommends that authority be obtained for the establishment of a new institution in the province of Quebec separate from St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary, and that this institution be of the reformatory type, to which could be transferred youthful and reformable offenders sentenced to terms of two years or more in the province of Quebec. It is anticipated that the principles of the Borstal system may be applied to this institution.
While all this is not yet according to the Borstal system, nor is it satisfactory segregation, it is, in m}T opinion, at least a start, especially in Quebec and in the maritimes, where new institutions are recommended to be set up. Collin's Bay and the penitentiary in Saskatchewan are to be a sort of quasi-Borstal system, but they will always retain the character and especially the reputation of grim prisons, and after some start which we might make we shall have to instal the Borstal system throughout Canada. Indeed, the same sort of experiment with regard to the special treatment of young offenders has been tried at Collin's Bay, and the superintendent reports some pleasing results in the last report with regard to the special treatment of prisoners in that institution. On page 7 of the penitentiaries report there is an interesting table. 1 shall quote only the last two years. It is a table giving the number of prisoners discharged from Collin's Bay since 1930 and shows the number of those who have been reconvicted. There has been a considerable improvement in the last two years. In 1943-44 the total discharged were 128 and the total reconvicted were 28. In 1944-45 the total discharged were 122 and the total reconvicted were only 16. The superintendent goes on to make this comment thereon:
One thousand four hundred and eleven convicts out of 1,779 being apparently reformed and leading a normal citizen's life, is, I submit, a most interesting achievement. As already stated, the percentage of the repeaters, as far as penitentiary sentences are concerned, is 20-68. This satisfactory result is mainly due, and this must be emphasized, to the fact that those convicts while serving sentence at Collin's Bay penitentiary, were not contaminated by hardened recidivists, nor were they in contact with any habitual offender who through the years has learned "all the tricks of the trade" and who boasts of his criminal career.
The results of this experiment are encouraging, especially in the last few years, as I have pointed out, and I trust that this will be followed up and continued, but not at the expense of the other experiments which the commissioner has or should have in view and which I have already mentioned. However, as far as

statistics go, the situation in Collin's Bay seems' to be the one bright spot. I do not wish to go into tables of statistics and comparisons with other countries, but the latest statistics available to me show that, while non-indictable or minor offences have declined during the war years, there was no such decline in connection with indictable or major offences, and they are still on the up-grade. From 397 per 100,000 population in 1942 to 410 per 100,000 population in 1944-these are the latest figures available to me. Convictions of young offenders are still worse. Convictions of young offenders between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one rose from 773 per 100,000 population in 1942 to 1,022 per 100,000 in 1944. That is for major indictable offences, which shows that the situation is still serious.
The superintendent's report deserves the careful consideration of all hon. members and contains an interesting summary of the reports of chaplains of the penitentiaries. They were instructed to analyse the causes which led certain classes of convicts to the penitentiaiy. I wish to quote the case of two boys, cited in the report of the superintendent at page 50. This report was compiled by one of the penitentiary chaplains, and this is what I find:
Convicts Y-ll and Y-12. Case of two very young boys under sixteen of very good families. Were following the sea as a profession hitchhiking from their homes at the close of the lake navigation season to go to the home of relatives on the Atlantic coast, whence to ship aboard a deep sea ship. The two ran out of food and money when near their destination, and, finally, in a panic, took a car in which the keys had been left to complete the last lap of their trip. They were apprehended en route, taken before the local magistrate where, without counsel or opportunity to get help from their families, they frankly pleaded guilty and were promptly sentenced to three years in the penitentiary. It was their first offence. They did no damage to the car. Their destination was legitimate although the use of the car without permission was, of course, wrong. They come from solid law abiding families, were travelling at full permission of home and school authorities. They had unblemished records and were a couple of kids. Remote cause: nil. Immediate cause: hunger and panic. (These two convicts were since removed from the large penitentiary to which they had been sentenced to a smaller institution where more selected convicts are sent.)
It is difficult to believe a story like that, isn't- it? Here we have two boys under sixteen sent to the penitentiary under these conditions: and we must assume the facts to be true, since this is the report of the chaplain who interviewed these boys. I wonder who committed the greater wrong against society, the boys or the magistrate. During the Easter recess I was discussing this astounding case with a magistrate in my own province, who .suggested that the tendency in those prov-

Penitentiary Act
inces, presumably the maritimes, was to sentence convicts coming from other parts of Canada to the penitentiary so that their governments would not have to pay for the upkeep of the convicts. I cannot subscribe to that; I cannot believe it is true, but I am repeating what I have been told. Another suggestion was that the magistrates in those provinces are inclined to send convicts, especially young convicts, to the penitentiaries since there are no institutions in their own provinces where those boys might be sent, at least no fit and proper institution, and sending them to a penitentiary might be better than sending them to the provincial jails. Perhaps there is some truth in both statements that have been given me; and, if so, is it not high time we did something to bring about a unified system, especially a Borstal system for young offenders?
It is hard to believe that young boys under sixteen years of age would be sent to a penitentiary; yet if you read the report of the superintendent you will find tables of statistics on pages 73 and 74, which show that four boys under sixteen years of age form part of our penitentiary population. So I trust the minister will move soon, and move his commissioner to act soon, in the formation of a Borstal system, or at least in adopting the recommendations made by the commissioner, which I read a few minutes ago.
The bill before the house purports to bring about improvements in our penal system, and if it did this I would welcome it. To me, however, the core of the bill is a change from a three-man commission back to the old system of one boss for the whole organization, and I consider this an abandonment of the main recommendation of the Archambault report, which I consider one of the finest reports any royal commission ever made. Because that is the case I am very sorry, but I shall be forced to vote against second reading of the bill.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I want to devote just a few minutes to this subject, Mr. Speaker, and I intend to confine my remarks as far as I can to this whole question of reform in prisons. You know a lot of us think there is some magic in this word Borstal. We say, "Let us have the Borstal system," and then we assume that all our difficulties will be over. That is very far from being the case. I do not know how you could ever have anything like the Borstal system operating throughout Canada without a definite arrangement between the dominion and provincial governments. I realize that in the province of Ontario they have gone a
long way in the treatment of youthful offenders. Quebec has also made considerable progress in that direction. Unfortunately we in western Canada, I think I am fair in saying, have done nothing at all. The situation there is that in order to get any reform school which is of any use those three provinces must join together, for the simple reason that we do not have a prison population sufficient to operate three different institutions. The only way that could possibly be handled-and this is not a complaint about the dominion government, though they might be of some assistance-is to get the three provinces together and sell them the idea of one institution for Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Hasn't British Columbia its own system?
Mr. GREEN; They are establishing it now.


Arthur Leroy Smith: They are on their way, but at the moment I know of nothing out there. I am not speaking from any recent information, but the only institution of the kind I know of is at Portage la Prairie, Manitoba, and I believe some of our people still go there.


George Alexander Cruickshank: British Columbia did have one, did they not?


Arthur Leroy Smith: Yes, the provincial government of British Columbia. In any event, whether or not I am completely accurate, the thought I have in mind is that once more we are up against this question of jurisdiction, and it does seem to me that not a great deal has been accomplished even during the present year, according to the report, in getting over that obstacle, which is a complete block, one might say, with respect to any over-all picture of reform for young people in our jails.
The question of reform is a very big one, I know; and I am coming back to the province of the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank), where they have an excellent penitentiary at Westminster. I was going to say I had occasion to be there, and by that I mean I had occasion to visit it once. I learned a great deal from a man whom I now know very well, who spent sixteen years in that institution as a convict and is now out on ticket of leave. I think he has a broader knowledge of the workings of the convict mind than anyone I at least have ever met. His position on the human side of the story is this. We will say we go into an institution and grant a reform. One that he told me about, for example, was the right to talk in the cells after meals. If you know how these tiers of cells are arranged in our penitentiaries,
Penitentiary Act

they have solid walls between the individual cells and conversation is almost unheard of because immediately it becomes a babel of shouting from one place to another. As he told me, men who are anxious to work and who had drafting boards in their cells were trj'ing to learn something by way of enginee

ing-because they have a very good library i" that institution. But they were just stopped on account of the bedlam. This privilege wa'-granted by General Ormond, who was superintendent and a kindly disposed man; and the thing just came to nothing.
The answer to that was, he told me, that the young chaps were immediately convinced that the move was not made through the decency or kindness of the authorities, but that they were immediately persuaded by the old lags that this had been forced on them; and they assumed all the credit for the change which was made, as they assume credit for every change which is made. Therefore they become the heroes to these younger chaps who are in the institutions and are necessarily in association with these older men.
I am not going to advocate anything, but I am going to ask whether or not the government has given consideration to a law such as one finds in the state of New York, for example, where, after four convictions for a definite type of crime, a man is removed from circulation. It is the equivalent of life imprisonment, after four convictions. It seems to me there may be some good in that idea-perhaps not as strict as they have it; but I am suggesting that the government should consider it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member will find
consideration was given to that recently.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am glad
to hear it. I want to say this, with all the definiteness that I can, that while in the report of General Gibson we have suggestions as to what is to take place at Stony Mountain, and what is to take place in one of the eastern institutions, there is no use whatsoever in talking reform unless the incor-rigibles are separated from the rest of them. That is just a basic thing that must be done. Get the old ones out of circulation, and then you have a chance with the younger men. The chap of whom I have spoken was so insistent upon that that he said, "You might as well stay home and stop trying, as things are. The chances are ten to one that the young fellow who goes in there under present circumstances will come out much worse, and also much smarter, because he learns the

tricks of the trade from those who are more experienced, and who also have served a much longer time in gaol."
General Gibson has been there for a year, or a trifle more than that. I have seen him on trains, and I know he is getting about and doing his best to see as many people as he can. But I must say this, that I had hoped we would have advanced farther at this time. The problem of segregation is not one which presents many difficulties; it is a comparatively simple thing to do.
Maj* I say with respect to the three-man commission which my hon. friend has spoken about, and which he finds so objectionable, that I am unable to follow him there. We still have the same three men, although we have put different labels on them. Naturally one man is in charge, and then we have the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley), a man in whom we have great confidence, who is in charge of the commissioner. However, that, it seems to me, is just a matter of shuffling the cards. I do not think any great principle is being violated by following that course.
I am going to be brief, and to stop right now, by expressing a hope. I have read debates on prison reform for years. But in the last twenty-five or thirty years practically nothing has been accomplished. So tonight I am now going to stop talking, in the hope that the government may do something quickly with respect to the reformation of our prisons.


Mr. DAVID CROLL (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I shall not be long, because I spoke about this subject last year. However, in view of General Gibson's report, I wanted to make some further observations.
I feel that the general ought to be complimented on his report, because it indicates broad understanding and a progressive mind. I thought he rather caught the spirit of the Archambault report.
As I recall the report, it laid down three principles, namely segregation, classification and after-care. In his report, General Gibson covered the first two rather thoroughly. If I can make any suggestions it would be on minor points-perhaps minor is not the proper word to use. Perhaps I should say that I would address myself to a few matters which lack emphasis in the report.
With respect to the Borstal system, General Gibson says that the system offers the best known opportunity for the reformation and rehabilitation of those who have not yet become hardened criminals. With that we all agree. While the Borstal system is directed to the needs of wayward youths, we must bear

Penitentialy Act
in mind that almost everyone in penitentiaries at the present time was once of an age and character that the Borstal system might have been useful to him. This fact is obvious when one looks at the annual report of the superintendent of penitentiaries which, in table 5 on page 7 indicates that in seven penitentiaries in Canada 1,238 of a total inmate population of 3,362 are under the age of twenty-five years. Table 4 indicates that one-third of the offenders are serving terms of three years or less.
I thought for a few moments we might consider the need of employing Borstal tactics in our penal therapy. British statistics show that approxmately sixty per cent of discharged Borstal inmates do not appear before the courts for further convictions. We see that twenty per cent are reconvicted once, and the remainder once or more.
What is our record? Page 8 of the same report shows that in the fiscal year ended March 31. 1946, there were 708, or less than twenty per cent of offenders who had no previous convictions. Over one-half-to be exact, 1,802 of the total of 3,362 had from two to eight convictions. It is to be remembered that these figures do not take into account the large number of people found in the many reformatories, industrial schools and jails across the country. I think it is obvious that something must be done to correct such an alarming situation. There seems to be no reason why Canada should have a greater proportion of recurring criminal tendencies among those who are released from her institutions of correction. We do not have the crowded cities there are in England, a circumstance which is often a contributing factor. There are other reasons, but in the main it is that our penal therapy is out of date and inadequate and in some degree ineffective.
One of the chief contributing factors is the lack of education which is a great cause of delinquency. On page 75 of the report I came across these startling figures: Out of a total of 1,635 persons, fifty-eight could neither read nor write, eleven could only read and 1,293 had common school education.
General Gibson has not lost sight of that, and in section 18(b) on page 13 of his report he points out that a thorough survey of the methods in each penitentiary by an experienced educationalist is necessary. It is true the Archambault report made a similar recommendation. Like the speakers who have preceded me, my complaint is that the recommendations are not being implemented fast enough; that these are all fine intentions, but we are not moving along quickly enough.
There is another matter which is important and which I think should be brought to the attention of the house, the matter of prison discipline. This is a most important phase in reformatory treatment and it has been forcibly brought to our attention by a riot in Stony Mountain penitentiary. I should like to refer to an article in the Montreal Gazette setting out an interview with an ex-convict who had served some time there. There is no reason why he should not tell the truth and here is what he had to say:
The outbreak had been no massed riot and had been the result of petty punishments. A man smoking out of hours would be awarded seven days solitary confinement and a man snoring would get three or four days "for creating a disturbance."
And again:
It was the narrow petty penalizing which had been responsible for the outbreak. All the prisoners wanted was better conditions. They all realized they had to do their time, but they didn't see why their existence should be made intolerable.
General Gibson has not lost sight of that recommendation. There again we have the same difficulty. These matters are small, but they accumulate and cause mischief in the institution. I come now to something which I think has been overlooked in General Gibson's report, the matter of after-care. I consider this to be of paramount importance if we are to cure criminal tendencies in our young offenders. On page 67 of the report it is stated that of those discharged during the year, fifty-six were under the age of twenty-nine. Table 15 on page 13 shows that a total of 838 prisoners were interviewed by welfare organizations during the year, despite the fact that 1,061 were discharged during the same year. We may well ask ourselves: Where are those discharged people to go and what are they to do? Are they being ostracized by society? What means have we provided for the reestablishment of ex-prisoners as useful, contributive citizens in our society?


Arthur Leroy Smith: Do you not think that is the best feature of the Borstal system?


David Arnold Croll: I was just finishing up if I may. I have here a quotation from "Prisons and Borstals," as follows:
Every young person on release is placed under the care of an association which is responsible to the prison commissioners. The association endeavours to find them employment, help them with regard to lodgings and outfits, and arrange generally through their local agents for supervision, assistance and advice.



Penitentiary Act
I came across this article in the Toronto Telegram of May 10. A man appeared before Magistrate Cameron in Orillia, and the article goes on:
"I am aware that the facilities offered to persons released from penal institutions are not adequate," stated Magistrate Kenneth Cameron
in sentencing	 to five years in
Kingston Penitentiary.
And again.
Magistrate Cameron pointed out that	
was apparently addicted to such crimes, and as there was little in the way of adequate facilities to take care of such people on securing^ their freedom, the chance of him conducting himself properly on release was remote. The public had a right to expect protection from such acts.
So he sent him to the penitentiary for five years. The man probably may have deserved it and I am not arguing the matter at all, but the point here is that he realized that there was a great inadequacy and the only place he could possibly send him to was the penitentiary. We have not the after-care which the Borstal system provides. Of the 838 persons who were visited last year in our penitentiaries, 635 were interviewed by an organization that had no responsibility at all to the penal authorities, who were doing this work solely as a contribution to the welfare of mankind; I refer to the Salvation Army. General Gibson recommends a policy which is, in fact, comparable with the Borstal system, and on page 16 he makes a recommendation with which I heartily agree. However, we have to do a little more than just recommend. He points out:
The Canadian penal association, under its new president, Major J. A. Edmison, K.C., has undertaken the task of coordinating the efforts of the prisoners' aid societies in the various provinces and of arousing greater public interest and cooperation in assisting discharged prisoners to obtain employment.
Then he goes on to say:
Your commissioner is of opinion that the activities of these societies should be encouraged and recognized and recommends that when a society demonstrates that it has been organized to carry out its duties with a reasonable degree of efficiency, provision should be made for it to receive financial assistance from the dominion government, based on the numbers released from federal institutions who have been assisted by its activities, to supplement the funds received from other sources.
The Canadian penal association are willing; these people are interested in this work. Because of their interest, because of their understanding and because of the work they have already done, I think they are entitled to recognition and to some monetary assistance. I think what has come out of these
debates is an awareness and recognition that the penal system of this country is inadequate and that there is urgent need for penal reform.
General Gibson holds that view and I am sure the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) holds that view. It is manifest from the report submitted by General Gibson that he is well aware of the need for penal reform. I think our purpose here today is to keep urging upon the minister to hurry along to get some of this work done because there is a great urgency. So my only contribution to the debate is to say to the minister, if we cannot have the Archambault report at this particular time, we are willing to settle for the Gibson report; but do not keep that from us either, because the conditions are not improving and the country is, I think, quite prepared at the present time to accept the Gibson report although it may appear to be inadequate. We must clearly understand, however, that General Gibson has grasped the principles involved and has attempted to meet the problem as he sees it. It appears to me that he is seized with the need for reform, and immediate reform, and I am asking the minister to see that these recommendations are implemented as quickly as possible.


Mr. J. M. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: I should like to add a very few words to this debate, and I think I can sum up what I want to say by putting in a plea for more urgency. Let me say at once that I do not wish to underestimate the difficulties that exist, I know we cannot do everything overnight. Second, I believe that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) is just as humane a man as there is in this house and just as anxious to see this job done as anybody. Nevertheless I feel, as I look back over the last eight or nine years, and particularly over the last year, and particularly as I read this report of General Gibson, that there is no sense of urgency felt. There seems to me to be a fatal deliberation about the whole business, and the reason I deprecate that is the very reason given by my seatmate, the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith), that, while we are deliberating, day by day young men who perhaps were accidental criminals to begin with are being taken into the penitentiaries and becoming expert and perhaps permanent criminals by the very treatment we are giving them. That seems to be an undisputed fact. Therefore I suggest .hat there is an urgency, and if there is an urgency, frankly I do not find any sign of it in this report.
I would point out at this stage in my brief remarks that it has been stated in this house and never denied that we who rightfully regard

ourselves are so advanced, and are in many ways advanced, are nevertheless regarded as a backward nation in this respect. That statement has been responsibly made-and I repeat it and it has never, so far as I know, been denied in this house. If that is true I think that is the background which should cause us to feel a great sense of urgency, the evidence of which I have never been able to find.
The first reason why I feel this sense of urgency is lacking is put in my mind by reading paragraph 4 of the report, and if my inference is wrong I hope the minister will correct me. Mark you, here is a commissioner specially appointed, as I understand it, to get on with this special job and try to put into effect a report which came out nine years ago. I am not forgetting the war. Nevertheless the Archambault report is nine years old and there are reports behind that going back for thirty years. So that we are really in arrears thirty years. Paragraph 4 of General Gibson's report reads as follows:
During the past six months, as a result of the untimely death of Mr. P. M. Anderson, K.C., of the Department of Justice, your commissioner has been assigned to supervise directly the administration of the penitentiaries branch on behalf of the department and has thus been afforded an opportunity of observing and participating in the day to day management of the penitentiaries.
The commissioner puts that forward, that substantial work has been put upon him-if I am wrong in my inference I hope I shall be corrected-which I assume has slowed him up in the discharge of this special duty, which I am suggesting is so very important and urgent-
Then I come to paragraph 7 of this report, and here again I have a feeling that things are moving, yes, but there is no urgency; nobody is shoving the thing along as if it was an emergency to be dealt with, as I think it is. Paragraph 7 begins by saying this:
The reorganization of the penitentiary administration recommended by the royal commission has not yet .been undertaken.
I realize that you cannot suddenly undertake a reorganization. You have to give it thought. You cannot plunge into it in an ill-considered manner. But that sentence does not indicate that there has been any real sense of urgency, which is what I am asking for. The hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith), who speaks on this matter with more knowledge than I have, stated that segregation is urgent; it is so important and vital; he said that the difficulties in the way were not insuperable, and yet very little progress in that direction has been made.
Penitentiary Act
I go on to paragraphs 8 and 9, which indicate that a good many things have been done, but for the most part they are not very far-reaching ones. I will read a few. The first one reads:
deprivation of the privilege of seeing visitors and receiving letters has been abolished as a punishment.
I should think that is good. And the next one:
deprivation of library privileges as a punishment is only awarded where such privilege has been abused.
That is good. I read further down on the same page:
shaving and bathing have been made more frequent. In several penitentiaries, showers have been installed.
I pass on to paragraph 9, which indicates that today more farm work is being done in connection with the penitentiaries. That is very good indeed; I approve that heartily. Then I go on to paragraph 11, which speaks of certain structural changes to various penitentiaries, and I think that is all to the good.
Then I come to paragraph 12, dealing with personnel, which is so all-important of course in this matter. It begins by saying:
Following the royal commission's report a survey of personnel was undertaken and in ,1939 a selected group of officers was sent to the British training school at Wakefield. Unfortunately the advent of war prevented the continuation of this project.
That we cannot complain about. It goes on:
I n-servire training has been carried out in the institutions to some extent, in one or twp. penitentiaries with a considerable measure of success. There is, however, a definite need fora well planned training programme throughout the service. The establishment of a training school for penitentiary officers, as hereinafter proposed, will permit the development of a, uniform standard of training-
And so on. Then I should like to refer to' paragraph 13 which says:
While conscientious efforts have been made by the wardens and their staffs to carry out the provisions of the regulations with respect to the classification boards in the penitentiaries, and these boards have met regularly and performed very useful service m deciding the type of work to which the convicts should be assigned it has not been possible to develop their full usefulness m planning individualized programmes of treatment because of the lack of facilities for the segregation of the different classes of the prison population.
Finally I come to paragraph. 26 the last paragraph and this again makes me feel, as I said before, that there is no feeling of really getting on with the job, as if it were something we were concerned about.


Mr. HACKETT:: Ask the minister to include penal reform in his next national emergency-
Penitentiary Act


James Lorimer Ilsley: We have jurisdiction without that.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Recommendation 26 reads as follows:
The proposals contained in this report constitute the first stages in the further development of the royal commission's recommendations.
It seems such a long, long way off that anything really is to be done. I continue with the recommendation:
The reorganization of the headquarters administration. the establishment of adequate procedure for the selection and training of staffs, the development of more scientific methods of classification and the provision of additional accommodation to facilitate the separation of the various classes of prisoners are essential preliminaries in the adoption of a broad policy that will place greater emphasis on the corrective and rehabilitative aspects of institutional treatment. As the carrying out of these proposals proceeds, it will be possible, in consultation with the wardens, to apply in each institution the more detailed recommendations of the royal commission in respect to the treatment and training of prisoners. Your commissioner submits that the implementation of the present proposals will provide a sound basis for the further development of the programme of penal reform.
I do not want to be cheap, sentimental or unreasonable, but, as I say, this is a report full of the future tense. There is no past tense in the whole thing to indicate that anything important has been done. There is practically no use of the present tense; it is all in the future. This will be done as a preliminary to .-something else, and then when that prelimin-,-ary is done we shall get on to something else.
As I take my seat I should like to say, with whatever earnestness I can command, \that if w'e had enough imagination in the house *really to bear in mind what the hon. member for Calgary West said, namely, that under our present system we are manufacturing new criminals day by day. there would be more present tense and not so much of everything left to the future.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Since I am not a lawyer it must seem strange for hon. members to hear me speak on this matter, but I have had more correspondence this session on this matter than on anything else. I am not going to dwell on the subject because it has been covered very well by all the speakers. I want to congratulate the . speakers from all parties who, in my opinion, approached this matter in a non-partisan way. I should particularly like to endorse the attitude taken by the hon. member for Spadina t(Mr. Croll) in his remarks to the minister.

While there may have been reasons for delay during war time, there are no reasons for delay now in putting the Gibson report into effect.
As I said a moment ago, I have had more correspondence on this matter than on anything else which affects my riding.


An hon. MEMBER:: You have more criminals.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is unfair. My riding happens to be particularly interested in the youth of the country. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the house on the attitude that it has taken on this matter in viewing it, not from a party point of view, but from the point of view of the welfare of the youth of the country.


John George Diefenbaker: I regret that I was not in the house earlier this evening to hear the discussion that has taken place. I know I would have benefited had I had the privilege of hearing other hon. members who participated in this debate.
At this late hour I do not intend to speak at any length but, sir, over the years I have had some little experience with the results that flow from the operations of penitentiaries. I do not know what the opinion of previous speakers has been; but, in my opinion, while many changes must take place, while our system today is very antiquated, it has done a surprising work, having regard to the difficulties under which those who operate our penitentiaries are actually working. On occasion I have seen men who have served their terms come from the penitentiaries and return once more to a life of crime. In large measure society is responsible for that; for when they return to a life of crime, in many instances the cause is that, after their discharge from penal institutions, they have no opportunity to secure work and little opportunity to regain their place in society. We are all to blame for that. I think it only fair at the outset of my remarks to make that statement.
I realize the difficulties under which the penitentiaries are operating today. I know-some of the shortcomings in connection with the administration. In saying these things, however, I cannot do other than mention the fact that, while the Archambault report was handed down a good many years ago and while there may have been some explanation for not implementing many portions of that report during the war years, there were few excuses prior to the war and since the termination of hostilities there have been few excuses that the government could rely on.

Penitentiary Act
As I see the situation it is this. The officials of the penitentiaries operate under, as I said a moment ago, an antiquated system in respect of which there has been little change in the last 100 years. So far as the staffs are concerned, within their power they are trying to carry out their responsibilities, but as I hear their story they find themselves in a position of being subjected to too many regulations from headquarters in regard to the administration. There has been a dilatoriness about everything.
Mention has been made this evening-and I mentioned it myself-that the report was handed down some nine or ten years ago and little has been done. I think, sir, that if those who are inmates of the penitentiaries, and particularly those who are discharged from these institutions, were of such numbers as to make their influence felt, many changes would have taken place in the administration of penitentiaries as a result of the representations made by those who have been discharged. Look at it as fairly as we may, all of us realize that there are shortcomings, definite nonfeasance. Representations are made from time to time and reports are handed down, but how few of us are prepared to take the interest necessary to make a great issue of the matter of penitentiary reform in our country. In Britain they were prepared to do that, and great leaders took up the cudgels and led the way. In Canada it has been otherwise. Private institutions, charitable institutions have undertaken the work. The Canadian Prisoners' Association has done a remarkable work. At the convention recently held in the city of Windsor, recommendations were made that might well be brought before the house and possibly later in this debate an opportunity will be given for the purpose.
There are those who speak of the number of recidivists, and certainly the statistics show that there are great numbers. But that has not been my experience with those whom I have known who have served in penitentiaries. The proportion has not been great so far as Saskatchewan penitentiary is concerned. Certainly it has not been as high as in other penitentiaries across the country, and one of the reasons has been that we have not had there a meeting with the older prisoners. New prisoners who come in, many of them desiring to reform, later on come under the influence of older and more experienced men, but there we have not had so many of the old-timers, the dangerous criminals, and the result has been that many who have been discharged from that institution have returned to civil life and are making good citizens.
I think of one man whose case I brought to the notice of the house. I will not mention the name, but the facts regarding him
are in the knowledge of the former, and no doubt of the present, Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley). Some seventeen years ago a young man in Saskatchewan was sentenced to life imprisonment in the penitentiary. He served for a period of years. When he entered1 the penitentiary his idea was that he would endeavour to live down the crime he had committed. He was convicted of murder and there was a commutation. He served in the penitentiary for fifteen years. When he entered the penitentiary he was in grade two or three. He continued to take advantage of the opportunities there. He accepted positions of responsibility in the service and by 1941 or 1942 had passed examinations equivalent to entrance into university.
All through the years this man studied; all through the years he dreamed of his freedom when his crime should have been expiated, and in 1944 he was granted ticket of leave and was discharged from the penitentiary, subject to monthly report. He joined His Majesty's forces, became a non-commissioned officer with the rank of sergeant, served for a period of approximately two and a half years, was discharged with a perfect record and is today living in Saskatchewan, restored to the district in which his crime was committed, and there enjoying something of the appreciation of the people at large for what he has done and what he is now trying to do.
Sometimes we look at the dark side, but here is an example of a young man who has proven that if he is prepared to accept the responsibilities that rest upon him, if he is prepared to take advantage of what is offered today, small as it is, there is hope for our penal institutions. But just because of such an example-I have pointed out one and there are others-it does not mean that this is general. Later on as I speak, I intend to refer to other examples and then to place before the house a few suggestions.
One suggestion I make now. That young man today, after having served approximately thiee years in the armed forces, has returned to his own district and is still required to report to the mounted police every month. There is a change that could be effected. Remove that disability, because disability it is. The police know where he is. He wrote to me the other day and pointed out this situation, and he said, "I will do my part if only you are able to secure the support of those in charge of administration to relieve me from being penalized for the rest of my days and required to report".
There is my first suggestion, that when a man is discharged from the penitentiary he
Privilege-Mr. Chevrier

should be given an opportunity to become rehabilitated. Do not hang about his neck a mandatory order that requires him, wherever he is, to report each month his whereabouts and also that he is willing to return to penitentiary when he is called upon.
On motion of Mr. Diefenbaker the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, May 27, 1947