[Stage Direction]
Canada's policy
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, before the house resumes the debate on the second reading of the bill to amend the Immigration Act, I should like to set forth, in broad outline, the government's policy with respect to immigration.
The policy of the government is to foster the growth of the population of Canada by the encouragement of immigration. The government will seek by legislation, regulation, and vigorous administration, to ensure the careful selection and permanent settlement of such numbers of immigrants as can advantageously be absorbed in our national economy.
Like other major problems of today, the problem of immigration must be viewed in the light of the world situation as a whole. A wise and productive policy for Canada cannot be devised by studying only the situation within our own country. For example, temporary but effective limits on any policy that is to be applied immediately are created by the problem of providing ocean transportation and of establishing inspection facilities in certain countries to which access is difficult at present. Moreover, Canada's policy has to be related to the social, political and economic

circumstances resulting from the war. Among other considerations, it should take account of the urgent problem of the resettlement of persons who are displaced and homeless, as an aftermath of the world conflict.
Under existing circumstances, therefore, Canada's policy with respect to immigration falls, necessarily, into two parts: measures designed for immediate application, and a long-term programme.
Let me point out at once that with regard to immigration at the present time, there is confusion of two fundamental points; namely, the extent to which immigrants may legally enter Canada, and the extent to which they can physically get to Canada. At present, the limiting factor is not our legislation or regulations, but the shortage of transport. Through Canada's high commissioner in London, the government has kept in active touch with shipping authorities and transportation companies in the United Kingdom to see what may be possible in the way of special shipping services. As to what may prove feasible, I am unable to make a report at this time. Other countries interested in encouraging immigration face precisely the same conditions, and are experiencing the same difficulties. The problem of transportation is a very real one. It cannot be overcome in a week or a month, or indeed within the next year.
The shortage of shipping means that Canada cannot secure more immigrants simply by changing laws and regulations. Since those persons we would be glad to welcome will not all be able to come, the shortage of shipping also means that we have to decide to which immigrants prior opportunity to come to Canada is to be given.
Because of the limitations of transport, the government decided that, as respects immigration from Europe, the emphasis for the present should be on the admission of the relatives of persons who are already in Canada, and on assisting in the resettlement of displaced persons and refugees.
Up until the end of the war and since- under order in council P.C. 695 of March 21, 1931-four broad categories of persons were admissible to Canada. These were:
1.	British subjects from the United Kingdom, Ireland, Newfoundland, New Zealand, Australia or the Union of South Africa, who possessed sufficient means to maintain themselves until employment was secured.
2.	United States citizens, similarly possessed of means of maintenance.
3.	Wives, unmarried children under 18, or fiancees of men resident in Canada.
4.	Agriculturists with sufficient means to farm in Canada.

Immigration
During the 1930's, due to the adverse economic conditions of the period, these provisions were necessarily interpreted in a restrictive manner. Because of improved economic conditions, it is now possible to interpret them broadly. It is the intention of the government, under present circumstances, to have the regulations so administered that British subjects from the United Kingdom, Ireland, Newfoundland, New Zealand, Australia or the Union of South Africa, and citizens of the United States, who desire to enter Canada will only be required to meet certain standards of health and character, and to show that they are not likely to become public charges.
At the end of the war, it was felt that conditions in Europe made it desirable to widen the categories of relatives of Canadian residents who could be admitted to Canada. As a result these categories, some time ago, were extended substantially. Recently, the terms of admissibility were extended to include still wider groups of relatives. All married relatives who are .admissible are now granted the right to bring their families with them. I would ask leave of the house to table a copy of the order in council-P.C. 1734 of May 1, 1947-which extends the terms of admissibility.
The government has also extended admissibility to persons who are suitable for employment in the primary industries. As hon. members are aware, Canada's primary industries are experiencing an acute shortage of manpower.
The resettlement of refugees and displaced persons constitutes a special problem. In the intergovernmental committee on refugees, and in the discussions in the united nations leading to the establishment of the international refugee organization, Canada has taken an active part. In this connection, the government has taken measures respecting the admission of refugees and displaced persons, and also of Polish ex-soldiers. These measures, though not of wide scope, are practical steps within the present physical limitations imposed by transportation.
Canada is not obliged, as a result of membership in the united nations or under the constitution of the international refugee organization, to accept any specific number of refugees or displaced persons. We have, nevertheless, a moral obligation to assist in meeting the problem, and this obligation we are prepared to recognize.
The government is sending immigration officers to examine the situation among the refugee groups, and to take steps looking towards the early admission of some thousands of their number. In developing this group movement, the immigration branch and the Department of Labour will determine jointly the approximate number of persons who can be readily placed in employment and absorbed into various industries and occupations. Selection officers will then consider applicants for entry into Canada, examine them on a basis of suitability and physical fitness, and make arrangements for their orderly movement and placement. Persons so admitted will, of course, be included in whatever quota Canada finally accepts as its share in meeting the general problem. In taking these steps the government is seeking to ensure that the displaced persons admitted to Canada are of a type likely to make good citizens.
Let me now speak of the government's long term programme. It is based on the conviction that Canada needs population. The government is strongly of the view that our immigration policy should be devised in a positive sense, with the definite objective, as I have already stated, of enlarging the population of the country. This it will seek to attain through the development and energetic application of productive immigration measures.
The population of Canada at present is about 12,000,000. By 1951, in the absence of immigration, it is estimated that our population would be less than 13,000,000 and that by 1971. without immigration, the population would be approximately 14.600,000. Apart from ' all else, in a world of shrinking distances and international insecurity, we cannot ignore the danger that lies in a small population attempting to hold so great a heritage as ours.
The fear has been expressed that immigration would lead to a reduction in the standard of living. This need not be the case. If immigration is properly planned, the result will be the reverse. A larger population will help to develop our resources. By providing a larger number of consumers, in other words a larger domestic market, it will reduce the present dependence of Canada on the export of primary products. The essential thing is that immigrants be selected with care, and that their numbers be adjusted to the absorptive capacity of the country.
It is of the utmost importance to relate immigration to absorptive capacity. In the past, Canada has received many millions of immigrants, but at the same time many millions of people have emigrated. Of the latter, a large proportion were young people born in Canada, and others who had benefited by education or training received in Canada. The
Immigration

objective of the government is to secure what new' population we can absorb, but not to exceed that number. The figure that represents our absorptive capacity will clearly vary from year to year in response to economic conditions. At the present stage, when Canada is returning to a normal situation after wartime disruption, it is impossible, with any degree of accuracy, to make forecasts as to our future power of absorption. For some time to come, no matter what special shipping arrangements we may be able to achieve, conditions of transport will limit the number of immigrants. When that limitation ceases to prevail, it will be necessary to consider further what measures will best achieve the adjustment of immigration to the numbers ... that can be absorbed into the economy of Canada.
With regard to the selection of immigrants, much has been said about discrimination. I
(wish to make it quite clear that Canada is perfectly within her rights in selecting the persons whom we regard as desirable future citizens. It is not a "fundamental human right" of any alien to enter Canada. It is a privilege. It is a matter of domestic policy. Immigration is subject to the control of the parliament of Canada. This does not mean, however, that we should not seek to remove from our legislation what may appear to be objectionable discrimination.
One of the features of our legislation to which strong objection has been taken on the ground of discrimination is the Chinese Immigration Act. This act seems to place persons from one particular country in an inferior category. The government has already initiated action for the repeal of that statute. Chinese residents of Canada who are not already Canadian citizens may now be naturalized. Once naturalized, they are permitted to bring their wives and unmarried children under 18 to join them in this country.
The East Indians legally resident in Canada are British subjects who have resided here for many years. They are therefore Canadian citizens. As such, their wives and unmarried children under 18 are admissible.
With regard to the Japanese, I stated, on August 4, 1944, at which time we were at war with Japan, that the government felt that in the years after the war the immigration of Japanese should not be permitted. This is the present view and policy of the government. It will be for future parliaments to consider what change, if any, should be made in this policy.
f~~ There will, I am sure, be general agreement 1 with the view that the people of Canada do not wish, as a result of mass immigration, to 
make a fundamental alteration in the character of our population. Large-scale immigration from the orient would change the fundamental composition of the Canadian population. Any considerable oriental immigration would, moreover, be certain to give rise to social and economic problems of a character that might lead to serious difficulties in the field of international relations. The government, therefore, '*"has" no thought of making any change in immigration regulations which would have consequences of the kind.
I wish to state quite definitely that, apart from the repeal of the Chinese Immigration Act and the revocation of order in council P.C. 1378 of June 17, 1931, regarding naturalization, the government has no intention of removing the existing regulations respecting Asiatic immigration unless and until alternative measures of effective control have been worked out. Canada recognizes the right of all other countries to control the entry or nonentry of persons seeking to become permanent residents. We claim precisely the same right for our country.
I wish to make it equally clear that the Canadian government is prepared, at any time, to enter into negotiations with other countries for special agreements for the control of admission of immigrants on a basis of complete equality and reciprocity.
Through the years of depression and war, and consequently of greatly restricted immigration, the immigration branch of the Department of Mines and Resources and its offices abroad were reduced to proportions wholly inadequate to cope with an active immigration policy. With the end of the war, and in the light of changed economic conditions, the government has already taken steps to expand and strengthen this branch of the public service. To carry out the government's policy effectively, immigration services will be further developed to meet expanding requirements.


Mr. GRAYDON:: If the Prime Minister would permit a question with regard to the urgency of the transportation problem, has he or the government received any information as to the success of the reported plan of Australia which used an aircraft carrier or aircraft carriers to transport immigrants from the United Kingdom to Australia?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Department of Immigration has been following the activities of other countries, but I am not myself in a position to make a specific reply to my hon. friend's question. It might be brought up when the immigration bill is before the house.

Questions


Mr. BRACKEN:: Will the Prime Minister permit one further question? He has referred to the immediate policy and to the longterm policy. As to the immediate plans could he give the house some idea of the numbers that will be involved in immigration to this country in the immediate future?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that my purpose in presenting this statement today was that I expected there would be a number of questions asked upon the further discussion of the immigration bill. I thought it would be helpful to hon. members* if at the outset before we got into that discussion, I made as clear as I could the policy of the government generally. As to any question of numbers or the like, I shall have to ask my hon. friend to allow the question to be answered when we are discussing the bill at some further stage.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION-* RADIO BROADCASTS

Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	What amount was collected during the period 1946-1947, fiscal year, for unemployment insurance?
2.	What amount of the above was paid (a) by employer; (b) by employee?
3.	What amount has been collected since the coming into effect of unemployment insurance?
4.	What amount of this has been paid (a) by employer; (b) by employee?
5.	What amount of the answer to question three has been invested (a) in dominion of Canada bonds; (b) in other securities?
6.	What is the total yearly dividend or interest received from investments?
7.	What amount or percentage of the answer to question six is paid by (a) the employer; (b) the employee?
8.	What amount was paid out in unemployment insurance benefits during the fiscal year, 1946-47?
9.	What has been the total amount paid out in unemployment insurance benefits since coming into effect of scheme?
Questions


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	The amount of employer-employee contributions was $67,701,330.17. This is exclusive of the dominion-government contribution.
2.	It is estimated that of the above amount $30,668,702.57 was paid by employers and $37,032,627.60 was paid by employees.
3.	The amount of employer-employee contributions from July 1, 1941, to February 28, 1947, is 1349,594,12721.
4.	Of the above amount, it is estimated' that $162,236,587.43 was paid by employers and $187,357,539.78 was paid by employees.
5.	(a) As at February 28, 1947, $343,432,000 was invested in Dominion of Canada bonds; (b) Nil.
6.	The interest on investments by fiscal years
is as follows:
1941-	1942 (9 months)	$ 203,680.481942-	1943	
1,479,415.231943-	1944	
4,398,668.731944-	1945	
6,195,926.721945-	1946	
6,116,768.541946-	1947	
6,596,849.04(11 months to Feb. 28, '47)	'7.	The interest on investments is received from the dominion government and not from either employers or employees.8.	For the eleven months ending February 28, 1947, the amount paid in unemployment insurance benefits was $38,640,472.98.9.	From the commencement to February 28, 1947, the amount paid out in unemployment insurance benefits was $78,065,628.79.


HOUSING-VETERANS LAND ACT- MIDDLESEX COUNTY
Mr. WHITE (Middlesex East):: 1.	What is the total cost of each of the 28 nouses constructed und-r the Veterans' Land Act in London township, county of Middlesex?
2.	What is the cost for each house of (a) land; (b) survey of roads and drains; (c) water mains and driveways; (d) administration?
3.	What items are included in such cost?


Mr. TUCKER:: 1.	With the exception of cost of land units the costs of the small holdings, including construction of houses and provision of services, will not be available until the completion of audit by cost inspection and audit division of treasury.
2.	(a) 10 at $80; 8 at $100; 4 at $102; 3 at $112; 2 at $143; 1 at $144.
(b) (c) (d). See answer to part 1.
3.	See answer to part 1.


SOLDIER SETTLEMENT-CAPE BRETON-SEARCH OF LAND TITLES
Mr. GILLIS:: 1.	How many solicitors were employed by the government in the county of Cape Breton to search the titles of lands purchased by or on behalf of veterans under the Soldier's Settlement and Land Act?
2.	What are the names of the solicitors so employed?
3.	How many of them are veterans?
4.	How much was paid each of them for legal services?
5.	What was the total amount paid?


Mr. TUCKER:: 1.	Six.
2.	Alex. O'Handley, North Sydney, N.S.; F. A. Hamilton, Sydney, NR.; Sir D. C. MacDonald, Port Hood, N.S.; Archibald MacPhail, Port Hood, N.S.; F. A. Thurgood, St. Peters, N.S.; J. D. MacIntyre, Sydney, N.S.
3.	Three.
4.	Alex. O'Handley, $968.50; F. A. Hamilton, $3,487.92; Sir D. C. MacDonald (not now employed on account of ill-health), $391.15; Archibald MacPhail, $559.05; F. A. Thurgood, $202; J. D. MacIntyre (recent appointment-no payments made).
5.	$5,608.62.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
CIVIL SERVICE-APPOINTMENTS, EXAMINATIONS, ETC.	,

Mr. KIDD:: 1.	How many (a) single women over 21 years of age; (b) single men over 21 years of age. have immigrated to Canada from the United Kingdom since January, 1946?
2.	How many of these British immigrants received assistance from the Canadian government?
3.	What was the total amount of such assistance?

Orders for Returns


IMPORT REGULATIONS-POTATOES
Mr. BLACKMORE:: :1. Has the government lifted import regulations on the importation of new potatoes from the United States of America into Canada?
2.	If so, to what extent and when?
3.	What is the estimated number of tons of Canadian potatoes in store in Canada depending upon Canadian consumers for markets?
4.	Before lifting the said import regulations were sufficient Canadian potatoes in Canada to satisfy demand for potatoes in Canada?
5.	Was there a deficiency of Canadian potatoes in store in Canada, and how great was that deficiency as expressed in tons?
6.	Was there a surplus of potatoes in store in Canada, and, if so, how great was that surplus, as expressed in tons?
7.	Just prior to the lifting of the import regulations, how many tons of Canadian potatoes were found to be in store in the Lethbridge area, depending for markets upon Canadian consumers ?
8.	Before lifting the import regulation against United States of America new potatoes, what precautions, if any, did the government take to provide that Lethbridge area potatoes would have appropriate and adequate access to Canadian markets.
9.	How many orders for Lethbridge area potatoes have been placed by Saskatchewan and Manitoba concerns?
10.	Since the lifting of the import regulations against United States of America new potatoes, how many orders for Lethbridge area potatoes have been cancelled by Canadian concerns?
11.	What, if any, reduction in potato prices in Canada has resulted from the lifting of these import regulations?
12.	Who gave the order to lift the import regulations?
13.	At whose instance was the order given?


KINGSMILL HOUSE, OTTAWA
Mr. ADAMSON:: 1.	Have the property and buildings known as Kingsmill House, situated at 453 Laurier avenue east, Ottawa, been sold by the government?
2.	If so, to whom?
3.	What was the price paid for the land and buildings?
4.	What were the terms of sale?
5.	.When was this property bought?
6.	What was the price paid for the property?
7.	What was the cost of improving, remodelling and decorating the property?


INCOME TAX-COSTS OF COLLECTION
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: What was the cost for the fiscal years 19451946 and 1946-1947 in each taxation division and province of collecting income taxes (a) salaries; (b) expenses; (c) legal fees; (d) total for Canada?


COGSWELL STREET HOSPITAL, HALIFAX
Percy Chapman Black: What did the government pay during the fiscal years 1944-1945, 1945-4946, 1946-1947, in connection with the Cogswell street hospital,
Halifax, N.S., for (a) rental; (b) maintenance; (c) improvements; (d) cost of operations, including salaries and fees?


BELLEVILLE ARMOURIES
[Stage Direction]
Mr. STOKES;
1.	What alterations or improvements were made by contracts let by the Department of National Defence or Department of Public Works at the armouries at Belleville, Ontario during (a) the year 1944; (b) the year 1945; (c) the year 1946; (d) the year 4947, to date?
2.	To whom were contracts let and for what specific work?
3.	What was the gross expenditure made under each contract?
4.	What, if any, of the above contracts are uncompleted ?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That on and after Monday, the 5th day of May next to the end of the session, government notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence on Mondays over all business except the introduction of bills, questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers.
He said: I hope, Mr. Speaker, hon. members will see that it is very much ini their own interests that this motion should carry. The house has now been sitting for over three months, and most of the business of an ordinary session is still before us. I myself would be glad to amend the resolution to include Wednesdays as well, if there is a general feeling among hon. members that I should so do.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: After all, it means that possibly only one member will have a chance to discuss his particular resolution. I am sure there will be other occasions on which that opportunity will be afforded. If hon. members agree I would ask to have the motion amended to read:
That on and after Monday, the 5th of May next, and Wednesday, the 7th of May next, to the end of the session, government notices of motion and government orders shall have precedence on Mondays and Wednesdays over all business except the introduction of bills, questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of
Inquiries of the Ministry

Agriculture, as a result of representations made to British Columbia members. Is consideration still being given to the extension to other provinces of the prairie farm rehabilitation measure? If so, when may a decision be expected?


Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: Consideration is still being given to the matter. I am not yet in a position to state when an announcement will be made.	.


Percy Chapman Black: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he will soon be able to make an announcement of policy and bring down legislation with respect to the reclamation of the marshlands of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Last year the minister announced that a bill had been drafted and gave a general outline of the policy. The interested parties are very anxious to have a further pronouncement of policy on behalf of the government.


James Garfield Gardiner: The legislation referred to last year had to do with the extension of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act to other parts of Canada as well as the Palliser triangle in the west. The answer to this question would be the same that I gave a few moments ago to the question asked by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid). The legislation is still under consideration, and I am not in a position to say what will be the result of that consideration.


Percy Chapman Black: I would point out that the reclamation of these marshlands is in a somewhat different position, inasmuch as it has been unanimously recommended and approved by all members of this house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.



HIS MAJESTY THE KING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I sent him a copy of a statement with the cases, and the references in Wheare on the Statute of Westminster regarding the matter which came up yesterday afternoon, having to do with His Majesty's style and title. When he has had time to consider the question, will the minister give a reply, say next week?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): I think that the reply can be given at once. If the hon. mem-
ber will look at Hansard of yesterday, I think he will find it was made quite clear that it was my view at least that under the Statute of Westminster no change in the royal style and title could be made without the unanimous affirmative action of the parliament of the United Kingdom and of the parliaments of the other units of the commonwealth, and that the abstention or refusal of any one of them would prevent the action of the others from being effective. I think that is also the doctrine which is expounded in the text book to which the hon. member refers.


Thomas Langton Church: And Hon. Howard Ferguson said in 1932 it would need the consent of all the provinces.


Mr. MacNICOL:: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a supplementary question. Is it his intention to consult, or is it necessary for him to consult, with the provincial governments before he consults with the other dominions in reference to the change of His Majesty's style and title?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No. The only requirement of the Statute of Westminster is that there be concurrent action by the parliament of the United Kingdom and the central parliaments of the other nations of the British commonwealth. There is no requirement^ in the Statute of Westminster for consultation by the central government of one of the units of the commonwealth with the provincial governments of that unit.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Have representations been made to the minister or to the Department of Labour alleging that Canada Steamships Limited have repudiated in whole or in part the agreement made with its employees following the seamen's strike of last summer? If such representations have been made, has the minister investigated the complaint, and does he contemplate any action in the matter? As I did not give the minister notice of this question, it will be satisfactory to me if he will take this as notice.


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I will answer my hon. friend right away. He knows the state of the industry and he knows the direction from which the question springs. I want to say to my

Inquiries of the Ministry
hon. friend that in this dispute the Minister of Labour will accept his responsibilities as Minister of Labour.


Angus MacInnis: I am not questioning that point.



STRIKE AT MASSEY-HARRIS PLANT, BRANTFORD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: Has the Minister of Labour been advised of the work stoppage at the Massey-Harris plant at Brantford, to which his department authorized the movement of some two hundred Nova Scotians to take employment because of the current labour shortage? Will the minister's department make arrangements for the maintenance of the personnel taken from Nova Scotia to the Brantford area, for the duration of the work stoppage?


Humphrey Mitchell: The unemployment of the men brought from Nova Scotia apparently is due to a shut-down of the Massey-Harris plant at Brantford, caused by a labour dispute. Disputes in industries of this nature come under the jurisdiction of the department of labour of the province of Ontario. Knowing the provincial minister, Hon. Mr. Daley, and the officials of his department as I do, I am sure this Brantford dispute will be dealt with promptly and justly. However, I have given instructions to the officials of my department to obtain information as to the extent of the work stoppage in question and its effect upon the men from Nova Scotia. I shall be glad to let my hon. friend have such information when it is received, but I should point out that the national employment service does not provide for the maintenance of men who have become idle because of labour disputes.



ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. C. I. MERRITT (Vancouver-Burrard):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. I have not given him notice, but I do not think he will need it. On>
April 29 the minister announced that the Royal Military College of Canada would be opened in September, 1948. Will he assure the house that entrance to the college will be open to youth with matriculation; in other words, will he assure us it will be an educational as well as a purely service training institution?


Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Defence):: The present plan is that entrance to both Royal Roads and the Royal Military College, when opened again, will be senior matriculation or its equivalent.



WAR ASSETS CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton):: I should like to ask the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply whether it is true that the War Assets Corporation has discontinued the priorities system as of yesterday, April 30. If so, what action has been taken with regard to requests for priorities already filed and not yet dealt with?


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: A change has been made in the system of priorities; the premiers of the nine provinces were advised accordingly some weeks ago. There is no change in the system as it affects real estate and buildings. In connection with other material, priorities are honoured if the material is in stock at the time; but the old principle of listing priorities against future receipts has been abandoned. As far as existing priorities are concerned, if they have not been filled up to the present they will be subject to new applications at the time the material is received.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs what British commonwealth governments have introduced legislation purporting to give their governments powers similar to those contained in Bill 132, an act to amend the charter of the united nations? Normally this question would go on the order paper, but the urgency arises from the fact that this legislation may come up for consideration before an answer could be given to a question on the order paper.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary for State for External Affairs): Even Homer nods, Mr. Speaker. My hon. friend asks what other government has introduced legislation to amend the charter of the united nations.


Gordon Graydon: No.
Inquiries of the Ministry

Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes; that was the language my hon. friend used, and it is the language used in his written notice. That is why I say even Homer nods, because legislation to amend the charter of the united nations would not be competent to this parliament or to the parliament of any member of the British commonwealth.


Gordon Graydon: It was a typographical error.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There is on the order paper a bill entitled "An act respecting article forty-one of the charter of the united nations," and I take it my hon. friend's question has to do with legislation of the character contained in the bill thus entitled.


Gordon Graydon: I thought "Bill No. 132" would be sufficient to identify it to the minister.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I will have inquiry made in order to give my hon. friend not only the names of the units of the commonwealth where such legislation has been introduced, but also the dates and reference to the action of their respective governments and parliaments.


Gordon Graydon: Could that be done by tomorrow?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: As soon as I received notice of my hon. friend's question I communicated with the legal adviser and asked him to get the answer ready just as soon as possible. He told me he could not have it for three o'clock today, but that he would use the utmost dispatch to get the material together.



DAIRY PRODUCTS

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO FIXING OF FLOOR PRICES On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. E. DROPE (Northumberland, Ont.):: Following the announcement yesterday of increases in the price ceilings of dairy products, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether consideration has been given to setting floor prices for dairy products.


James Garfield Gardiner: Most of the prices announced yesterday were floor prices. The only exception, I think, was butter.



SUGAR BEETS

[Stage Direction]
REFERENCE TO DIFFICULTY OF FACTORIES IN SECURING NECESSARY SUPPLIES On the orders of the day:
John Horne Blackmore: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Justice. Have

they been informed that the Canada and Dominion Sugar Company is having serious difficulty in signing beet contracts, and that on April 28 it had less than 25,000 acres signed up, hardly enough to supply one of the company's two sugar factories in 1947? If this is found to be the case, will the minister tell the house whether or not he is contemplating any action to meet the situation?


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: I had not been informed of the facts mentioned by my hon. friend, but I do not think the government is contemplating any particular action in the field to which he refers.


John Horne Blackmore: May I ask if it would be the intention of the government to permit one of these sugar factories to remain idle this year because of a shortage of sugar beets?



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): On April 2 the house appointed a select committee to review radio broadcasting and the reports of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. When is it the intention to call this committee together? It was appointed a month ago.
Hon. J. J. McCANN (Minister of National Revenue):: The motion setting up the committee was passed prior to the Easter recess. Until today there has been no request by anyone to have the committee sit, but it is ready to be set up at any time.



SHIPMENTS UNDER UNITED KINGDOM AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. TUSTIN (Prince Edward-Len-nox):: A moment ago the Minister of Agriculture announced that most of the dairy product prices mentioned yesterday were floor prices. Is it the intention of the government to requisition all the cheese made in Ontario and Quebec'from April 1 until late this fall in order to fulfil our agreement with the United Kingdom? If so, is it the intention to take the cheese at the floor price instead of the ceiling price?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I do not anticipate that all the cheese of Ontario and Quebec will be taken to be sent to the British market.
I assume the amount sent will be the surplus, which is usually about seventy per cent of the cheese produced in Canada. Any cheese

Emergency Powers
which is taken will be taken at the .floor price, which was announced yesterday. It will be bought at that price.



EMERGENCY POWERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, April 29, consideration in committee of Bill No. 104, to provide for the continuation of certain orders and regulations of the governor in council for a limited period during the national emergency arising out of the war-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: The committee had completed consideration of the orders in council referred to in the schedule. There is now before the committee the amendment moved by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), as follows:
That the schedule to Bill No. 104 as amended be further amended by printing therein the text in full of the orders in council numbered in the first column, as amended by those numbered in the fourth column in the said schedule.


Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice):: This would be expensive and, I submit, unnecessary. It would make a bulky volume of statutes for the year 1947. Not only have the orders in council been tabled, but they have been reduced to consolidated form and distributed. I do not believe there would be any demand on the part of the public to have them bound in the statutes. From time to time these orders in council will be subject to revocation, either in whole or in part, and the public would derive no advantage from having them published in the statutes.
The public of course should be able to pick u,p the volume of the statutes and see what any piece of permanent legislation is. But the publication of these orders in council does not give the public that information, because of the power of revocation contained in the legislation itself. I think it would be a mistake to publish all these orders in council, for the reasons I have stated.
Amendment negatived.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall the schedule as amended in committee carry?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have an amendment to offer to one of the orders in council which has been carried. I refer to P.C. 7475, which appears in the schedule at page 4 of the bill. The day before yesterday an order in council was passed amending the regulations of the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation so as to make it clear that in certain instances
the government may recover subsidies, whether they are payable by the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation or by other departments or agencies of government. Therefore I move:
That the following be inserted in the schedule to this act in the column entitled "Amending orders in council" so as to pertain to order in council P.C. 7475 of 26 August, 1942, and immediately beneath the figures "390 31/1/47": "P.C. No.	Date
1711	29/4/47"
I may have made my explanation too concise, but I shall be glad to answer any questions about it.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule as amended agreed to.
William Ross Macdonald: Sections 2, 4 and 7 of the bill have not yet been carried. The committee will now proceed to consider section 2.
On section 2-Orders and regulations continued in force.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I move the following amendment :
That section 2 of the act be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
"(2) Notwithstanding subsection one of this section, the orders and regulations specified in the said schedule shall be read and construed as if the provisions set forth in the column of the said schedule entitled 'Amendments' had been duly enacted as amendment thereto to take effect from the commencement of this act."
It is obvious to hon. members who have followed my language that the addition of this subsection becomes necessary as a result of amendments to the schedule.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
James Lorimer Ilsley: May I point out that an amendment was moved by 'the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair). While I have no desire to press the amendment, my recollection is that it was moved, and that there was a request that it be allowed to stand. Perhaps the Chair would inform the committee as to whether or not such an amendment is before us.


Mr. FLEMING:: I think that was an amendment to section 4.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, it was section 2, and it was suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver North.


William Ross Macdonald: I have been handed an amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Vancouver North, as follows:
Wherever the word minister is used in the schedule to this act, the rights, powers, duties, liabilities and functions of that minister shall
Emergency Powers

extend and apply to such boards, and other public bodies, officers, subjects, services and properties of the crown as may be designated or assigned to the minister by the governor in council over which the minister shall have the control, regulation, management and supervision.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am afraid I cannot accept that amendment, worded as it is. If there were any demand for such an amendment it could be accepted in different terms, but I submit that no amendment is necessary. Some of the orders do contain provisions that the boards shall be subject to the direction of the minister, but the minister is charged in every case with the responsibility of administering these orders. I submit that nothing would be gained by making any amendment, and I would prefer that no amendment be made. I think I should say that I have had some conversation with the hon. member for Vancouver North and I have explained my point of view. While I cannot say that it is agreeable to him, nevertheless I do not think he would be insistent ppon the amendment being made in the light of the explanations that I have given him.
Amendment negatived.
Section 2 as amended agreed to.
On section 4-Orders and regulations may be revoked.


Mr. KNOWLES:: The amendment which you have in your hand, Mr. Chairman, is recorded in Hansard of April 17 at page 2130. I would point out that the day after it was moved the Minister of Justice suggested an alternative wording. I should like to ask the consent of the committee to withdraw the amendment recorded on April 17, so that I can move the wording suggested by the minister.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.
Amendment withdrawn.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I now move:
That section four of the act be amended by adding thereto the following:
Provided that notwithstanding anything in this section no provision of any order or regulation of the governor in council specified in the part of the schedule to this act entitled ''wartime prices and trade board" shall be revoked by the governor in council unless addresses have been presented to the governor general by the Senate and the House of Commons praying that such provision be revoked.
In order to make the meaning of this amendment more clear, I should like to repeat the wording which I used before, which was as follows:
Provided, however, that none of the orders listed in the schedule to this act under the
[The Chairman.]
section headed wartime prices and trade board may be revoked without the consent of parliament.
The purpose of this amendment is to give parliament an opportunity to put a brake upon the government with respect to decontrol in the field of prices. It is clear that it is not possible to prohibit the government or the wartime prices and trade board from changing price ceilings and doing other things allowed1 under the provisions of the order, but some of us feel that it should be made clear that the whole price control structure should not be subject to revocation by the government without the consent of parliament. In other words, there are two matters at stake here. One is the supremacy of parliament over the government with respect to this matter, and the other is the attempt on the part of the house to make known its will to the government.
Speaking about this matter before, the Minister of Justice stated, quite correctly, that even if this amendment were to pass- and I appreciate his offer to put it to a free vote-it would still be possible for the wartime prices and trade board to scuttle most of this machinery and its effectiveness.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: All of it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, that is true, for all that this would require is that the order in council be kept on the statute books. It would have no legally binding effect, but it would have a moral effect. After all, in the relatione between parliament and the government there is such a thing as good faith, and that is the basis of my amendment. I believe that if parliament passed this amendment, the government would recognize what it means and would feel bound to reconsider its attitude toward price decontrol.
If the need for slowing down price decontrol was ever demonstrated, it was demonstrated in this House of Commons within the last two days. The night before last we were told of tax reductions soon to take place; in fact the wording used suggested that there were to be "slashes" in income taxation. But when one looks into the matter he finds that a married man with a wife and two children earning $150 a month will-
Some hon. MEMBERS : Order.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member is referring to a debate during the present session on another subject.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am not quoting from any other debate. I am simply-

Emergency Powers


William Ross Macdonald: I think the words used in the rule are "referred1 to". The rules of the house prevent an hon. member from referring to a debate on another subject.


James Lorimer Ilsley: On the point of order, there is still another ground; the hon. member is referring to the terms of another resolution on the order paper.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member is out of order if he is referring to the terms of another resolution. In any event he is referring to another debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was speaking about price control, and I wanted to refer to the price of one commodity, namely, butter. An announcement was made yesterday in this house that the ceiling on the price of butter had been increased to permit an increase in the price of ten cents per pound. I have before me a government publication put out by the Minister of National Health and Welfare which contains statistics showing that the average consumption of butter by families in this country is 2.3 pounds per week, the average family in this case being four persons. The announcement made yesterday afternoon means that twenty-three cents per week, effective immediately, will be taken away from the average family. I was trying to compare that with the nineteen cents a week which was given to a married man with two children earning $150 a month according to the announcement made in this house the night before last, effective two months hence.
It is that sort of thing-nineteen cents to be given two months hence and twenty-three cents to be taken away immediately-that presents this parliament with the issue which is summed up in this amendment. Are we satisfied to let the government go on with its headlong policy of price decontrol, or do we want in the name of the Canadian people to *put some kind of brake upon that policy? I have in mind as well the fact that half the wage earners in Canada are in income brackets where they do not pay any income tax at all. They do' not get even nineteen cents increase in their net income, but they have to pay this increased price which will amount to twenty-three cents a week, and that comes all at one crack.
I could discuss other items, but I am not going to-


Mr. MACKENZIE:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -for the simple reason that I want that one to stand out, if I may say so, to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, because there is the issue put clearly by what has happened in the house in the last two
days. I call upon hon. members to accept the opportunity which has been given to us by the Minister of Justice for a free vote, and pass this amendment as an attempt to put a brake upon the government with regard to its headlong policy of price decontrol.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If my hon. friend is putting his amendment on the. ground that he is condemning the policy of the government, I certainly will vote against it; but I stand by what I said, that any hon. member can vote exactly as he wishes on this amendment. I do not accept for one minute the meaning of an affirmative vote that the hon. gentleman gives to it. By his language he is attempting almost to turn this into a vote of censure, and that is not my understanding of what the effect of this vote would be. The only reason I am accepting this, if the committee wants to do it-and I am not going to vote for it myself, because I do not see that it accomplishes a thing-is that it does not make any practical difference in the situation, and the matter of good faith will not come into it at all. We feel that we must have some freedom in the matter of decontrol. If the amendment goes through, we shall accept our responsibility, just as we shall if it does not. The administration of the orders may go on just as it has in the past. I have defended and now defend the policy which the government is following. I know my hon. friend's view is that we are proceeding too rapidly. Many other hon. members of the committee say that we are proceeding too slowly. We think we are proceeding about in the way in which we should proceed. I have full cognizance of my hon. friend's views in the matter, but I cannot accept his advance interpretation of what the result of this free vote will be.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have just one other word to say, and it is this. Speaking on this matter a few days ago the minister said that support of this amendment would be commendation of the work of the wartime prices and trade board. Perhaps he used the word "affirmation" but at any rate it was in that tone. If the passing of this amendment expresses confidence in the work of the wartime prices and trade board in regard to price controls, then it can be inferred that we are asking for the continuation of the good work it did during the war years.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Mr. ZAPLITNY:: I wish to say just a word or two. There is a ground on which this amendment is particularly important. It is not as trivial and as simple a matter as the Minister of Justice seemed to imply in what
Emergency Powers

he said. It does have practical value, for the reason that it puts in the hands of parliament the decision which parliament must take. As the bill stands at the present time, if it is not amended the government tomorrow may pass an order in council throwing out the wartime prices and trade board altogether. I am not saying they will do that tomorrow, but they could. The reason we should like to see this matter decided in parliament rather than in the cabinet itself is that there are members on the other side of the 'house who are not in agreement with what the government is doing at the present time in the matter of decontrol.
When the minister says that a vote on this amendment may amount to a vote of censure, he may be perfectly correct.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Excuse me: I did not say that, and I do not say that. I am saying that the language of my hon. friend almost asks that the vote be considered as such, and I do not accept that for one minute. Hon. members may vote as they like on this motion, but the vote will certainly not be regarded by the government as any criticism whatever of the course the government is taking.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The minister is welcome to take any interpretation he likes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: So long as I may, that is all right. I do not want any question of bad faith arising.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I want to point out clearly that it is not a question of party politics; it is not one particular group in the house urging some point raised by that group, because I have in my hand a copy of the debates of April 2 in which the hon. member for Bonaventure, speaking on this bill, used these words-and if it cannot be taken as censure I do not know what it can be taken as. At page 1978 of Hansard, he said:
Not only does it mean the retention for the time being of such controls as we know to be beneficial to the Canadian people in order to hold and stabilize our post-war economy, but in many cases it also means the reimposition of some of the controls which have been lifted. I shall go still farther-and I am in good company, along with the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) and many other hon. members-and say that I believe that it is possible -it should be possible-to devise some means whereby we shall never return to the old system of control by private enterprise to the "detriment of the common people of Canada.
That is what he had to say so far as price controls were concerned, and it is certainly not in line with what the government is doing at the present time.

Speaking on April 17, as found at page 2143 of Hansard, the hon. member for Fraser Valley used these words:
I agree with the hon. member for Eosetown-Biggar when he said that this government and no other government dare take off these controls, but they are taking them off bit by bit and we see the profits that are being made as quoted by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar yesterday and as quoted in the Star today. The United States is admitting that they cannot control prices as the present time.
Further on he said this:
I want these controls to be more effective. I want some controls to be restored.
These are two members sitting on the government side of the house who spoke plainly in opposition to the present stated policy of the government. They said in their speeches that there were many other hon. members- I do not know whether they meant many hon. members on this side of the house or on the other side of the house, but I presume they meant their colleagues on the other side-who took the same attitude. If that is so; if there are many private members on the other side of the house who feel as these hon. members did, then there is a good reason why the final decision must be left to the house as to the length of time during which the wartime prices and trade board shall operate. A vote of this sort-and I should be very happy if all hon. members were in their places to take part in it-would reveal to the government a rather different type of attitude from the one they are taking at the present time on the question of decontrol. I therefore urge strongly that every hon. member be available to express his opinion on this amendment.


Mr. SHAW:: I should like one or two matters cleared up. Am I correct in assuming that even though the committee may pass this amendment, legally it does not bind the government in any way whatsoever? Is that correct?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It does not deprive the government of freedom to decontrol, because within the framework of the existing orders in council, board orders, administrators' orders and controllers' orders may be made which will carry out the process of decontrol. The only things that must remain are the orders in council themselves, which will stay there until voted by the presentation of these addresses. I made careful inquiries to ascertain whether there would be any real restriction upon freedom to remove ceilings, for example, or to raise ceilings, or to take any other step in the process of decontrol, and I

Emergency Powers
was told that there was none. However, the wartime prices and trade board would have to remain in existence until the orders in council were removed either by the lapse of time or by the action of parliament. Therefore I think the motion accomplishes nothing. However, as I have said, if members want to vote for it we have no objection. It is a direction that the board must remain there for at least that length of time. I am satisfied that it will remain there for that length of time; I am satisfied that it will have to. and that the rental control organization and certain other organizations which derive their existence from these orders in council must remain there for the period provided in the act or until parliament itself would do away with these organizations. Therefore the government will not be embarrassed by the amendment, but it must be made clear that the amendment is not accepted by the government as in any sense a criticism or censure of the policies which it has followed. I do not think it has any bearing one way or the other on confidence in the government or approval of its policies.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Am I correct in assuming
that the sponsor desires through this amendment to prevent the government from making any changes whatsoever in the direction of decontrol between the time of prorogation of this parliament and the commencement of the next session?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, that could not be
done by this amendment.


Mr. TUCKER:: If the government may
make any changes in regard to decontrol what would be the object of keeping the board in being and paying them salaries when they might have nothing to do?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is interesting to be in the position of having to answer questions instead of ask them. I thought I had answered that one before, Mr. Chairman. I will try to say it again in a tone of voice less offensive to the minister, although I still feel strongly about the matter. I suggest that if parliament passes this amendment, as I hope it will, and thereby expresses its approval of the job done by the wartime prices and trade board, that will be at least an indication to the government that parliament wants price control continued and a serious effort made by the government through the wartime prices and trade board to prevent increases in prices such as have been taking place in recent weeks. That is the issue before the committee.
Amendment (Mr. Knowles) negatived: yeas, 14; nays, 63.


Mrs. STRUM:: We have not enough votes to carry amendments or to defeat the government, but we would be failing in our duty if we did not express the protests of the people in our constituencies against government action in the matter of price control.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. This clause
does not in my opinion permit of a full discussion of price control. According to the standing order all discussion in committee must be strictly relevant to the clause under consideration. This clause has to do with revocation. I will read it:
The governor in council may revoke in whole or in part any order or regulation continued in force by or made under this act.
It is a question of the power of revocation.


Angus MacInnis: If revocation of the
order can be discussed, Mr. Chairman, how can one possibly discuss revocation without discussing the order itself and the matters that come under it? As this covers all the orders I submit that all the matters dealt with in the orders are open to discussion.


William Ross Macdonald: I did not intend to
prevent the hon. member from referring to the orders or regulations, but her references should be in relation to the power of revocation.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: I am not, of course, an authority on procedure, but I understood that this was the key clause covering all the orders and their revocation in whole or in part. I may have misunderstood the wording, but I understood that this was the key which leads to all the orders and all parts of all the orders, and I interpreted this clause as being the one on which you could discuss the revocation of price controls.


William Ross Macdonald: I take it that that is correct.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: That is what I wished to discuss, the revocation of price control orders. Am I in order in doing that, Mr. Chairman?


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member is in order.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been alarmed at the publicity being released recently by the wartime prices and and trade board which would give us to understand that prices in Canada must follow the price levels in the United States. I could quote speeches from various persons now in the employ of the department, and I must say that this publicity is to me alarming because
Emergency Powers

we all know that price levels in the United States are alarming not only to us but to the people of that country. I plead with the government to protect the Canadian consumer to a much greater extent through these orders which clause 4 would give the government the power to revoke in whole or in part.
Last year on July 5 the then minister of finance made an extended statement in the House of Commons on the need for having emergency control. At the time he made that announcement he was restoring the Canadian dollar to parity with the United States dollar, and speaking of the need for controlling prices and thereby safeguarding the Canadian consumer he said at page 3180 of Hansard:
Perhaps the greatest threat to the stability of prices in Canada comes from the rise in prices in the United States and, to a lesser extent, in other countries.
Then he outlined four different steps which the government was taking to safeguard the Canadian consumer against those price rises in the United States.
But since that time two things have happened. Prices in the United States have continued to rise, and Canada has gone a long way in her policy of decontrol. The question I am now asking the government is this: Does it propose to allow Canadian prices to continue to follow the pattern of prices in the United States? If so, what technique does it intend to use (a) to raise the wages of workers in Canada to the same level as wages in the United States; (b) to raise the level of farm prices to the same level as farm prices in the United States, and (c) to provide purchasing power for persons of small fixed income such as civil servants, pensioners, and perhaps those living on small annuities or the income from small investments?
Speaking of the prices in the United States, the president of that country almost every day warns business that they must not and cannot continue to exploit the consumer. We hear statements like these, which appeared in the Toronto Star of April 21:
President Truman today warned business leaders that continuation of present high prices threatens the nation with an "economic cloudburst."
"If we are to avoid a recession . . . prices must be brought down. Present business conditions permit, in fact, they require lower prices in many important fields. There is one sure formula for bringing on a depression or a recession. That is to maintain excessively high prices. Buying stops, production drops, unemployment sets in, prices collapse, profits vanish, business men fail.
I believe that we as a nation can prevent this economic cloudburst. But it requires prompt, preventive steps."
But it was at the doorstep of business that he laid the greater responsibility for preventing a depression. To business he said:
(Mrs. Strum.]
"If we are to avoid a recession we must act before it starts.
Profits in the aggregate are breaking all records. In 1946, corporate profits, after taxes, were 33 per cent higher than in 1945. In the first quarters of 1947 they ran even higher."
"There are some who say that prices are not too high so long as buying stays at high levels. From the human standpoint, I reject this argument. It provides no answer to those living on fixed incomes, such as teachers, civil servants and widows. It provides no answer to those veterans who must pay substantially more for houses than they are able to afford.
"Our system of private enterprise is now being tested before the world. If we ignore the needs and shirk the responsibilities of our economy, we shall lose both our power to help others and our capacity to inspire others."
This is what President Truman thinks of the economic policy of the United States. I submit to the government that we have the machinery to control the profits of industry, but we are gradually throwing it out the window and allowing business to take the place of government. We should be unworthy of our responsibility as representatives of the people if we did not object to that under this clause.
I now wish to put on the record the difference between Canadian food costs and United States food costs; because if we are to allow our prices to reach the levels of the United States prices, this is what we can expect in the matter of price increases in the various articles of diet. These Canadian figures are taken from chain store advertisements of April 2, 1947, in the Ottawa Journal, and the United States figures from a quotation by Mrs. Douglas, congresswoman from California, and placed on the record on April 2, 1947. With the permission of the house I should like to place this table on1 Hansard. The figures are as follows:
Comparison of Food Prices U.S.A. and Canada
U.S.	Can.	Difference	Mar. 12	Apr. 2	Price	Per centFlour ....	.084	. 064	.02	30.7Butter ...	.82	.45	.37	82-2Milk	.17	.15	.02	13-3Eggs	.69	.44	.25	56-8Pork chops	.73	.49	.26	Bacon ...	.79	.59	.20	33-8Shortening	.42	.21	.21	100-0Coffee ...	.49	.49	.00	Peas 	.19	.13	.06	46-1Bread .. .	.20	.074	.124	166-6Soap chips	.34	.24	.08	41-6Sausage ..	.49	.32	.17	53-1That gives us an	indication	of what	we can
expect in the rise in the cost of living if we accept the fact that our prices must reach the levels which prices have now reached in the United States.
What about the difference in wages? Here are some wages in the industries of manufac-

Emergency Powers
turing, electrical machinery, furniture, automobiles, iron and steel; and with permission of the committee I should like to place this table on Hansard.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Chairman-


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: All right; I will read them, then. The figures are as follows:
Per Capita Weekly Earnings
	December	1946		
Industry	U.S.1	Can.2	Differ- ence	Per centManufacturing	$46.83	$34.54	$12.29	35-6Electrical Machinery..	49.23	35.69	13.54	37-9Furniture ...	42.54	29.74	12.80	43-0Automobiles..	55.38	41.73	13.65	32-7Iron and steel	49.67	39.17	10.50	26-6
rU.S. figures from Federal Reserve Bulletin, March, 1947.
2Can. figures from Labour Gazette, March, 1947.
What about farm prices? What are we going to do about them? If you accept the United States structure, then you are going to have to go back and revoke your treaties with the British government and you are going to have to allow the farmer these increases in his prices. These are the prices as at Chicago and Winnipeg, and are the latest figures available: Commodity United States Canada Difference
Oats	
$	.87	$	.65	$	.22Wheat	
2.89	1.55	1.34Barley	
1.61	.93	.68Ho*s	
26.50	21.60	4.90Beef	
24.75	14.50	10.25Elax	
7.50	3.25	4.25
I ask the government to tell us if they are going to allow farm prices to follow the level of farm prices in the United States; is that what they believe in? The policy of the government is based on two premises, both of which are faulty. They say that volume will reduce prices. That is not being experienced either in the United States or in Canada. They say that the buyer can strike. Well, what happens when the 'buyer strikes? The buyer punishes two groups of people. The buyer withdraws his purchasing power and punishes the manufacturer who has the privilege of putting the ticket on the goods; but he also puts out of work the people employed in that industry. Already that has begun to happen in the United States, where we have seen some industries close for the first time in eight years. I submit that is a stupid, clumsy and wasteful method of punishing big business for taking excessive profits.
If we have to go through another depression in order to reduce prices I think we shall have failed in our duty as members of this parliament, because we had all the machinery for price control and the people
of this country had confidence in it. Again and again the ministers have told us that it worked, that it saved the consumer millions of dollars, that it saved us from inflation, that it saved us from all the evils of an unregulated economy in war time. And while the government may say that, as a nation, the emergency is over, I wish to say that for the individual the emergency is just beginning.
I have in my hand two letters from old age pensioners in Vancouver. In the last one, which I received only yesterday, the writer says:
Also I may say the rent situation is a disgrace.
This is since the controls were taken off.
In this house room rents were raised from $3 weekly to $7 weekly. They are ordinary rooms, no proper facilities for washing, one bath and toilet for fourteen people, and no one bothered to do anything about it.
In the same letter she tells me that large department stores such as David Spencer, Woodward and Hudson's Bay are now discharging people sixty-five years old, and that all married women over thirty-five are being discharged and refused work. So we are tightening up on the labour situation; we are letting rents go up; we are letting butter reach 60 cents a pound; we are taking the subsidy off milk. At the same time we can give almost half a million dollars to Crane, so that we enlarge their plant facilities in order that they may extend their output, and then we take off price control to let them set the price on their plumbing fixtures, though they are a monopoly and part of a cartel arrangement. I say to the government that if through this measure they now render abortive the remaining section of our price control machinery, they shall deserve the trouncing they will get at the next election.


James Lorimer Ilsley: We are not rendering any machinery abortive at all by this legislation.


Mr. WRIGHT:: You did when you voted down that amendment.


James Lorimer Ilsley: My hon. friends had better not go out and say that. I am afraid that is just what they will try to do, but it is not so. I may never get an opportunity to answer their speeches, so I will just have to answer them in advance, here. That amendment did not mean anything, and if it is going to be used as a basis of political attack on the government, it will be an unworthy attack. I agree with the hon. member who just took her seat that care should be exercised in our decontrol, and the only point I am making now is that by enacting this section we are not doing anything, nor did the members of
National Housing Act

this house on a free vote, by defeating the amendment, do anything whatever to lessen the effectiveness of our price control.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
lhat it is expedient to present a measure to amend the National Housing Act, 1944, and more particularly:
To increase the ratio of loan to lending value under part I of the act, to include under part I houses having two family housing units, of which one is to be occupied by the owner, to extend tlie period of amortization of home ownership and rental housing project loans to thirty years, to empower life insurance, trust and loan companies to purchase, improve and sell land to be used for residential housing developments, and to authorize Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to guarantee to such companies the return of the principal invested in such land and improvements, together with interest thereon at a rate not to exceed two per centum per annum.
Mr. NICHOLSON:: 
Mr. E. B. McKAY (Weyburn):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to this resolution to amend the National Housing Act, 1944, I for one feel that the facilities of the act should be extended into the field of subsidized housing. Housing is one of Canada's most urgent problems. When one realizes that a large percentage of the residents of this country live in quarters leased from landlords, he cannot help recognizing that the number of houses actually owned by Canadians is altogether too small. According to the Canada Year Book for 1941, the census figures show that in urban centres owner-occupied dwellings represented only forty per cent of all occupied dwellings in Canada. In the large cities the situation is even worse. According to the tenants' league, more than eighty per cent of the families resident in Montreal are tenants. Most of these people are tenants, not of their own choosing but because they have not had sufficient income to provide homes for themselves.
The Curtis report of 1943 on housing stated that two-thirds of the Canadian people cannot afford rentals exceeding $25 a month. This group, which represents 66J per cent of . Canada's population, obviously cannot afford, on their present incomes, to buy or to build homes sufficient for their own needs. Almost every family in Canada would like to own a home of its own.
Wartime housing is a type of subsidized housing, but is not so in the strictest sense of
National Housing Act
COMMONb
the word. Even at that, it is inadequate to meet the needs of Canada's growing population. It is a selective enterprise providing housing for only a small part of the veteran group who are desirous of obtaining homes.
If homes are to be provided for the low income group, comprising two-thirds of Canada's population, it seems apparent that the government must adopt a programme of subsidized housing similar to that in countries such as Sweden, Denmark and the United Kingdom. Only by such a programme can the needs of our citizens be met.
I do not propose at this time to discuss the housing programmes embarked upon by the governments of these countries. But I wish to emphasize the great need of such a programme in Canada. Present inducements to builders and to investors appear wholly inadequate to provide the type of low-cost housing which the majority of Canadians require.
Housing is still one of Canada's most acute shortages. The situation has been aggravated by the return of veterans who are seeking to set up households; and by others, too, who are endeavouring to obtain separate accommodation, after doubling up during the long and terrible war years. This shortage will probably remain with us longer than any other, if the backlog of housing construction contracts is any indication. In order properly to appreciate the problem, one must review housing construction in this country for the past two decades. In the ten years prior to the outbreak of the war, economic conditions were so bad that people were unable to provide sufficient capital with which to build or purchase homes. As a consequence, many were forced to double up with friends or relatives. When war production began many families moved to the larger centres to seek employment and this taxed the available housing accommodation in those centres. In a short time the demand for shelter exceeded the available supply.
For years housing construction has lagged in Canada because there was no government subsidized building programme. As an example, in 1933 only 14,000 housing units were built in Canada and in the year of the outbreak of the war, 1939 only 39,000 housing units were, erected. These hardly took care of the demand created by the natural increase in population. I believe that this in itself is sufficient proof that low-cost housing cannot be provided without some scheme of subsidized housing on the part of the government. Canada entered the war years with a housing deficiency and even in pre-war years many of our people were living in very close quarters.

Because of the improvement in economic conditions brought about by war production, the marriage rate increased and new families demanded homes. At the conclusion of the world conflict thousands of young veterans returned home intent on marriage or accompanied by European brides and hoping to set up homes here in Canada. Many of those young men are still seeking suitable shelter. Canada is now entering a period of reconstruction and housing is one of our greatest needs. Construction costs today are prohibitive for those in the low income group and without government assistance there is little hope that these people will ever have decent homes. The government must take the leadership in this matter, so that Canadians, whether rich or poor, may be able to secure homes of their own.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I believe that hon. members in all sections of the house will welcome a resolution that will help relieve Canada's mounting housing problem, but a resolution of this kind should not be allowed to pass without the administration being requested to Change its policy and to proceed in another direction. I do not think there can be any disagreement with regard to the proposal made by the minister with respect to increasing the ratio of loans to lending value; secondly, to including under part I houses having two housing units, third, to extending the period of amortization and, fourth, to providing facilities so that direct loans can be made.
I presume that under the fourth proposal made by the minister it will be possible for the citizens in rural sections to take advantage of the National Housing Act. A year ago I had some experience with the administration here in connection with attempting to get clearance for loans on rural housing, but the machinery is so complicated that I do not think any loans have been approved up to date in the part of the country in which I live. I feel that we should offer as vigorous a protest as possible against the proposal that we empower life insurance, trust and loan companies to purchase, improve and sell land to be used for residential housing developments, and authorize Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to guarantee such companies the return of the principal invested in such land and improvements, together with interest thereon at a rate not to exceed two per centum per annum.
Here is another example of a democratic government handing over to private organizations outside parliament responsibilities which should be assumed by either the federal

National Housing Act
authority, the provincial authority or the municipal authority. The fact is that the municipal and provincial authorities have not the financial resources with which to embark on a building programme that would meet Canada's need, but the dominion authority proved, during the period of the war, that we did not lack man-power and that we had plenty of materials and financial resources to do whatever was physically possible.
I can recall when the minister was receiving criticism because Canada had failed to produce engines for our planes. As I recall it, he pointed out that to embark on an engine production programme would tie up 8,000 men for two years and there would be no guarantee that at the end of that time the engines which would be produced would be satisfactory. The minister stated, and quite correctly, that after careful review it had been decided that rather than tie up 8,000 men for that period and use large quantities of materials it was better to make a deal with United States manufacturers who were prepared to guarantee that we would have engines for all the planes that could be manufactured. But never once during that discussion did the minister say that Canada did not have the financial resources or the material resources; it was a matter of using our material to the best advantage.
The government should lead the way in demonstrating to the country that we can repeat wartime performances now, that we can build houses for our people, that the question of need will be the determining factor rather than the amount of money that may be available. 1 suggest that if the minister were prepared to go as far to meet the desir^ of the provincial and municipal authorities as he is prepared to go to meet the life insurance and other lending institutions we would make greater progress. His statements to date would indicate that private enterprise is not prepared to build housing on a rental basis for much less than $70 a month. As the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. McKay) has pointed out, at least two-thirds of the Canadian people are not in a financial position to take advantage of that type of housing.
I have here a brief which was submitted by the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities to the special committee of the House of Commons on reconstruction and reestablishment which sat in May, 1942. I find that at that time this organization was giving careful consideration to housing as a post-war undertaking. Its brief points out:
In the 1941 census, 25 Canadian cities housing a population of 30,000 and over, were subjected to a housing survey. Based on returns from every tenth dwelling, the survey revealed that 61-5 per cent of the people of these cities lived
in rented quarters; 38-5 per cent were home owners. Of the tenant homes, 53'6 per cent paid less than $25 rent monthly; 36-3 per cent less than $20; and 16-5 per cent less than $15. Nearly 42 per cent of all the houses, both rented and owned, were built of wood, and 20 per cent of the total were obviously in need of exterior repairs. More than 17 per cent had neither bath nor shower; 4-5 per cent depended on outside toilet facilities; and nearly 10 per cent shared toilet facilities with others. Thirty per cent had no means of refrigeration, either mechanical or ice.
When it is remembered that these figures included returns from both large and small cities, from cities a century and more old, as well as cities that have come into being during comparatively recent years, it is understandable that the returns from some of the cities show an even more aggravated and serious state of affairs than the inclusive and over-all facts undoubtedly reveal. For instance, bearing in mind the type of dwelling likely to be available at a rental cost of less than $15 per month, the survey showed that 25'5 per cent of the total households in Hull were in this category; 25 per cent in Saint John, New Brunswick; 15-7 per cent in Montreal; 15T per cent in Sherbrooke; 15 per cent in Saskatoon; with proportionately large percentages in other Canadian municipalities.
There can be no doubt that an alarming and acute housing crisis has been piling up and awaits urgent action in the immediate post-war years. Decent housing accommodation for low-wage income families remains the unresolved major problem of our urban committee.
Universal experience, confirmed by Canadian experience, testifies to the fact that unassisted private enterprise has been unable to provide decent housing for those of low income.
In order that a large proportion of Canadian urban families should not continue to live in unfit dwellings, and in order to supply the urgent need for housing facilities, conforming to an acceptable minimum standard, for the low-income groups, and thus to attack the serious problems of health, welfare and order, which are directly related to inadequate housing, we believe that:
1.	A bold national policy should be adopted for rehousing the low income groups at acceptable minimum standards, as a cooperative undertaking among federal, provincial and local gov ernments and private enterprise.
This policy should be designed to stimulate local initiative, recognize local circumstances, and vest the control in a properly constituted local housing authority.
2.	The federal government should extend, in accordance with local needs, financial assistance to local authorities, conditioned on the existence of a comprehensive town plan and housing programme meeting satisfactory standards.
3.	The appropriate federal housing agency or department should extend capital grants, longterm, low-interest loans, or annual rent subsidies to cities, in order to permit them to carry out a local housing programme.
4.	The federal government should also extend and provide long-term low-interest loans, up to 90 per cent of the loanable value (say with a maximum of $6,000), for housing purposes to individual home builders and building societies.
5.	A model provincial housing law should be prepared, to enable local communities, to take part in a national housing programme, and to
National Housing Act

carry out community rehousing programmes, in which public and private groups can cooperate. The provinces should be encouraged to enact legislation in conformity with such a model provincial housing.
6.	Finally, municipal authorities should consider the reduction of the rate of taxation on buildings and the corresponding increase of such rates on land, in order to lower the tax burden on home owners and the occupants of low-rent houses, and to stimulate rehabilitation of blighted areas and slums.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that these carefully prepared recommendations submitted by the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities should have been the basis for these proposed amendments rather than representations which are designed to benefit the insurance and lending institutions. I submit that the type of housing which will be brought into being as a result of the concessions to the insurance companies will be available for the top third of the Canadian people who would be able to get housing somehow or another even without this legislation. I admit that they might have to pay more but they would be able to find some housing. The people in the lower brackets, at least two-thirds of the Canadian people, are still not going to be able to get any assistance from the type of legislation the minister has brought before us today.
A few years ago I visited some of the housing projects in the United States which were made possible through the cooperation of the federal government and local authorities. In New York city I had an opportunity to compare the publicly owned houses and those built by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. It is true that the Parkchester development in New York by the Metropolitan Life was a good deal better than anything that had been undertaken by private companies up to that time. They cleared out quite a large slum area and made houses available at lower rents than are prevailing in similar apartment blocks in New York. But the rates are still so high that the people in the lowest income bracket are not able to take advantage of the legislation; whereas in the Vladeck houses built by the New York city housing authority five-roomed apartments were made available for $6 a week, for people with low incomes, as a result of the federal government of the United States recognizing that maintaining slum areas places a heavy burden on all the people. If you enable slum dwellers to live in modern houses which are well built, well heated, with playgrounds and modern facilities, you will decrease your crime costs, fire hazards, health costs and, in general, make a better citizen. I am sorry to see that 'in the United States the experience TMr. Nicholson.]
gained while the late President Roosevelt was at the helm is not being used. But we have had sufficient experience in the United States to demonstrate that private enterprise is not going to solve the problem; that not until you get a federal authority prepared to work in cooperation with city and municipal authorities can you face the problem. I should like the minister to reconsider the bill that he is proposing and offer to the municipalities and to the provinces the concessions which he is apparently prepared to give to the life insurance companies.
I feel sure that in the Dominion of Canada there must be municipal authorities which, in the face of the urgent housing situation, are prepared to go along with the federal government. I have discussed this matter on previous occasions. Unfortunately the government has not taken the advice which I have given on many occasions and which the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities gave in 1943 to try to reach some agreement between the different government agencies; but even at this stage the minister might indicate that he is prepared to give the provinces or the municipalities at least the consideration which he is prepared to give to life insurance companies, namely, that he will guarantee that they will not lose money if they acquire land and embark on a housing programme; that they will have at least two per cent on their investment. I think anything less than the same sort of offer to the municipalities will not be acceptable to the majority of the people of this country.


Frederick Davis Shaw: During the Resent session of parliament considerable attention has been given to the subject of housing. I regret that I should have to detain the house at this time, but I have not occupied much time previously on the subject. I recognize fully that the resolution before us has to do with amendments to the National Housing Act of 1944. However, it is recognized, or at least it should be recognized, that the National Housing Act is designed to meet a part of a greater problem which we are endeavouring to overcome, not only through this one act, but through a number of activities on the part of the government.
In my particular part of Canada housing is certainly a serious problem. I recognize that it is not as serious there as it is in the more congested urban areas. When considering housing, and the problem of housing which is facing us today, I am reminded constantly of certain conditions which have resulted in an acute problem in this year, 1947. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, that problem has its roots in

National Housing Act
certain conditions which prevailed during the years prior to the outbreak of the recent war. It has been said, and it is definitely recognized today, that probably the greatest single problem facing the home builder or the prospective home builder is the tremendous costs involved. I know that, prior to the war, lumber, which today costs in the neighbourhood of S55, $60 and $70 a thousand, was to be had for as little as $12 'to S16 a thousand, and I hazard the suggestion, too, that lumber which we purchased prior to the outbreak of the war for $14 to $16 a thousand was a better grade of lumber than that for which we are called upon to pay $50, $60 and $70 a thousand today.
But we found very little building going on even then and I think the reason for that is well known to us all. We were faced with tremendous unemployment problems. There was then no shortage of labour, but there seemed to be a shortage of the determination to utilize available facilities for the purpose of adequate home construction. One change that has taken place since those middle thirties is that money costs today are., generally speaking, considerably lower than they were then. One of the difficulties prior to the war was an inability to arrange adequate financial terms because of the high interest rates then prevailing. I am pleased to know that in some respects this one problem has been overcome. At that time, when we were faced with higher interest costs, taxes were usually paid separately from the contract and certainly they constituted a tremendous burden. Then there was the compounding of interest on loans made for housing purposes. Before the war and during the war and more particularly today there has been this tremendous upward climb in municipal tax rates. I think it is true of every part of Canada that municipal tax rates are climbing to staggering heights. The prospective home builder of today in so many communities hesitates to build because he fears the forfeiture of his home within a period of a very few years on account of the increase in the mill rate.
When we entered, the war, decent housing accommodation was the exception rather than the rule. I mention that just to underline the fact that housing is not a problem that has come upon us merely since the outbreak of the war. It has been a chronic problem and is accentuated today by the fact that more people are financially able to build; in addition, a great many marriages took place during the war and that has stimulated the demand for housing; also a great many people, wives of servicemen and others, have come to live in Canada since the cessation of hostilities. This 83166-170
has all accentuated the demand for housing. Persons who never before could contemplate home construction are today contemplating it. But first they are faced with the critical material shortage.
I happen to be one of those unfortunate individuals who have built homes for private use within the past two years and I know something of the headaches with which one is afflicted during the course of such a venture. When one speaks of costs being shocking he is not exaggerating at all. I hate to speak in a personal way and do so only to illustrate my point. I paid $55 and $65 a thousand for shiplap which ten years ago I would not have used in the construction of a chicken coop. I paid $77 a thousand for two-by-tens which ordinarily I would hesitate to use in the construction of any outbuilding. This condition applies not only to lumber but to practically every other article that goes into the construction of a home, with the result that today a five-room house with bath will cost $8,000 or upwards, unless you are just going to throw it together, and even then I doubt if you can do it for very much less than that. Some of these five or six-room houses, complete with basement and possibly an attached garage, are being built for a price in excess of $10,000. What is the immediate effect of that? The ordinary individual contemplates the possibility that within five or six years property values may have depreciated to the point where those homes will be worth only $2,500 to $3,500. There are scores of people who are hesitating to build today because of the danger of taking that tremendous loss in capital value on account of depreciation because of economic conditions. For the ordinary person who requires a dwelling, building is almost entirely out of the question under present conditions.
I spoke of assessments and taxes a moment ago. This is what we are faced with in most of our municipalities. Assessments today are running from 60 to 100 per cent of present-day property values. It is hard to believe, but it is true that in some municipalities a person owning a $4,000 home is today being called upon to pay anywhere from $185 to $225 a year in taxes alone. I know of cases where these new $8,000 homes, which may be worth only about $4,000, have an annual tax charge now of $400 a year. I do not want to mention any particular municipality and I shall not do so, but it is a fact that in certain municipalities these conditions do obtain. I could produce tax statements to show tax charges of from $200 to $400 a year on homes running from $4,000 to $7,500 or

National Housing Act

$8,000. That is discouraging home building. It is cheaper today to rent than build. Consequently many people who are in a position to build are refraining from doing so as long as they can rent quarters even at $35 or $40 a month, because then they have no taxes to pay and no depreciation of property value to face. That depreciation is not recognized at all by the income tax officials wheh you are living in your own home.
It seems to me that one should be prepared to admit the fact that the government recognizes the problem. I am fully prepared to admit that fact. I think it is only fair to admit that any person in this country who is at all observant sees the problem. I am prepared to admit also that the government, in its own way and according to its own belief, is making a concerted drive to meet the problem and deal with it effectively. But on the other hand I am prepared to assert that the problem is not being dealt with effectively today. It seems to me that we must adopt other methods to supplement those which are at present in effect, and I propose to make reference to at least one other method which I think should be used.
During recent years we have recognized the principle that production has had, in many respects, to be financed by the government. We have had bonuses and subventions paid to railway and shipping companies for certain specific purposes. Industrial development has been presumed to have been assisted by the imposition of tariffs for the benefit of industries employing Canadian labour. Consumer bonuses have been paid with a view to stimulating trade and consumption. I say that now we have to recognize another principle, and that is the payment of subsidies for home construction, subsidies administered effectively and to whatever extent required to meet the problem. Other methods have served a purpose; other methods will continue to serve a purpose, but a solution is what we are now seeking; and I say that the only effective solution which is now left to be applied is the direct subsidization of private dwelling construction.


Mr. H. W. HERRIDGE (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to repeat many of the things which have been said on this subject by several previous speakers, but I rise particularly to support the point of view put forward by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson). I feel that I must do this because in one section of my riding-and I am now referring particularly to the city of Trail-we have an immediate need for some

500 houses. That immediate need) is also felt by at least 200 veterans in that district. Under our present conditions, I am quite certain that private enterprise cannot cope with this need. I am not going to give reasons and' arguments for that statement. I think they are obvious to anyone who has studied the situation. I do not believe this act will provide houses for two-thirds of the Canadian people who require them. It is not providing the houses at the present time. I think experience proves that. But I believe that our experience to date with Wartime Housing points the direction in which our housing policy should be turning.
As far as my constituency is concerned, in the city of Nelson there have been or are now under process of construction fifty houses under Wartime Housing and 125, I think, in the city of Rossland. In fairness, I must compliment the officials of the department on the work done in that connection. I believe the work in both cities has received general commendation. The houses have been reasonably well constructed and the people who are going to occupy them are, I think, well satisfied. To that extent the problem in those two cities has been solved, although I understand that the city of Nelson intends to apply for further houses, if they can be obtained. We used that technique with success. I want to say that the officers of the department and the contractors in question should be credited with a good job. The contractors in both cases were local firms who took a certain local pride in the project and who cooperated with the city, with the legion and with the departmental officials. Where you have cooperation of that type you have a reasonable chance, of success.
Unfortunately, however, we have not been able to provide for the major housing needs of the constituency I represent, which includes the city of Trail. There we have a particular problem which, I am sure, cannot be solved by private enterprise and cannot be solved under the terms of the National Housing Act. We have a city, with a population of about 14,000 people, which is limited in area and without further ground for housing expansion. Therefore it is not possible for the city of Trail to apply to have houses built under Wartime Housing, because those houses must be built within the confines of the corporation. Here we have some 500 houses required at the present time; as I said before, we have some 200 veterans-men who served this country-waiting for homes for their families, some of whom are living in basements and under disgraceful conditions, because of the constitutional difficulties presented under the

National Housing Act
municipalities act of British Columbia and the attitude of some private owners of property surrounding the city.
That is, I think, a concrete illustration of the soundness and the validity of the argument put forward by the hon. member for Mackenzie. That problem cannot be solved without cooperation, and a policy which permits cooperation, between federal, provincial and municipal governments. The federal government would have to provide the fund's. The provincial government would have to provide the legislation, and make arrangements for the extending of the city's boundaries; and the municipal government would, of course, have to cooperate as they do under Wartime Housing. This is a concrete illustration of the need for cooperation between all three types of governments if we are to build houses and build them within a reasonable time in the future.
Why should this be such a problem? During the war, when the needs of this country required the building of a $10 million plant to produce ammonia products, a plant was built in short order in the city of Trail, in the municipality of Tadanac. And quite close, when we required a $12 million power plant for the production of power, the plant was built. Material and labour were obtained. All that was done in order to supply the needs of war. At the present time we have human needs which must be supplied. There are 500 families waiting for houses to live in-and of those 500, at least 200 are veterans who cannot secure satisfactory accommodation-because there is no policy which permits their problem to be solved. I am not blaming the municipal authorities. Their hands are tied, because they cannot extend the boundaries of the city under the provincial municipalities act, and because of the attitude of certain owners of property surrounding the city.
In conclusion, I say that if we had a housing policy based on the principles of Wartime Housing-which I think have been successful in most respects-which permitted cooperation of national, provincial and municipal authorities, who were determined to solve the problem as we solved our problems during the war, the housing needs of our people would be met in a reasonable time.


Mr. T. J. BENTLEY (Swift Current):: While the problem in my constituency is not exactly the same as that which has been described by some other members, nevertheless it is a serious one and I think it should be drawn to the attention of the minister. He probably already knows about it from other sources, but I believe it should be drawn to his attention here also. I agree with the three 83166-170i
previous speakers in what they have said regarding this need. Swift Current is not an industrial city. With the exception of one or two larger plants, it is comprised mostly of small businessmen and people like that. It is not a corporation city. The result is that a great many of our returned men prefer to build their homes within the city limits rather than to take advantage of the small holdings section of the Veterans' Land Act, or of Wartime Housing, of which there is none in this city. They want to build their private homes on lots which they can choose. The city council made available to them city-owned lots at a nominal price and the local contractors there-small enterprises operating on their own-have been doing their best, within the framework of the National Housing Act to provide the necessary homes for veterans who cared to have them constructed in that way.
The severity of the winter ancT last fall's bad weather prevented a start on many of these houses. The consequence has been that the rising of prices and the inability of the contractors to get the material has slowed down operations greatly, and the legion is becoming quite concerned. The legion is a body representative of the people around there. The membership is close to four hundred. It is composed, I believe, of about 100 veterans of the last war and 200 or more veterans of this war. The veterans are a reasonable bunch of men; they are not at all rambunctious in their ideas, and they give careful consideration to the things which they propose. I think I could not put the situation before this house in any better way than by reading the resolution which was passed there quite recently and which came to me in the mail. I should have preferred to have this representation made during the discussion on the appropriate section of Bill No. 104, but it fits in very well with the present discussion. This resolution was sent to the federal control board. I presume that is the timber control board or the people connected with that matter in the minister's department. This is what it says:
Whereas the housing situation is still acute and a first problem for federal, provincial and municipal governing bodies and
Whereas the costs of building increase month by month with such material beyond the reach of the average wage-earning citizen and particularly the returned service man and woman and
_ Whereas the ex-service person through these inflated and prohibitive costs is least able, though most deserving, to purchase his home
Be it resolved by the Canadian Legion, Swift Current branch, No. 56, and its ladies' auxiliary, that this housing situation be brought once more to the notice of the federal control board with

National Housing Act
an urgent request that these housing material costs he brought into line, compatible with the service man's purse and that he be given priority in all building material.
And further be it resolved by the Canadian Legion, Swift Current branch, No. 56, and its ladies' auxiliary, here assembled:
That the federal control board continue to control building costs and
That contractors building under the N.H.A. be allowed to purchase necessary material direct from manufacturers thereby cutting material costs to an immeasurable extent.
The last sentence would indicate that these contractors must buy through the retail trade. That seems hardly fair, because, while these contractors are not great national figures or big businessmen, they are men with a considerable investment in equipment, and if their equipment and men are tied up waiting for material the men will drift into other employment, the equipment will stand idle and the houses will not be built. If these men were operating under the National Housing Act and its terms were wide enough -as I believe they may be with this amendment, if something better does not come along-they would be able to go direct to the source of supply and perhaps make arrangements for much of the building material they are unable to get at the present time.
I would ask the minister to give this point his serious consideration. The people are deserving. They have done their best for the country. They are not asking any special favour. They have jobs; they are earning money; they are trying to settle in homes they will own themselves and to become taxpayers of the city. They want to carry on like other citizens, to become part of the community, and everything possible should be done to make these homes available to them. They want to buy these homes and pay for them, but they know it is no use undertaking contracts which their earning power will never make it possible for them to fulfil. They are earning good money; they will be good citizens, but they will never become wealthy. Their arrangements for the future have to be made on the basis of what they expect to earn. They simply cannot get these houses with the present building costs, as I think the minister knows very well.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in. the chair.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I did not take part in
the discussion this afternoon; on previous occasions in this house I have expressed my view on the need for low-rental housing. However I should like the minister to tell us, during the committee stage, whether or not any conversations have been held or are

proposed with the provinces, so that the proper jurisdiction as between dominion, province and municipality in the housing field may be ironed out. We know the minister does not favour low-rent housing, as he said in the house this session.


Clarence Decatur Howe: When was that statement
made, that I did not favour low-rent housing?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: That you did not favour subsidized low-rent housing.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, yes; but you did not say "subsidized."


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Then I should have said it. The minister has said he does not favour subsidized low-rent housing; but, whatever his view may be, there is no doubt, as I think he will agree, that there is no clear definition of responsibility in the low-rent housing field as between the three authorities, and that this is holding back what others might do in this field. It is causing considerable difficulty in my own city right at the present time, as the minister knows, in connection with the negotiation of contracts for Wartime Housing and emergency shelter. I feel sure that at the root of the difficulty I just mentioned' is this problem of division of responsibility.
I really rose to ask some specific questions with regard to the proposals the minister is now bringing before the house. He is proposing amendments to the act to increase the percentage of the lending value that may be advanced. On July 29 of last year I pointed out, at page 3982 of Hansard, that with the lending value of $4.60 per square foot under the National Housing Act, as it apparently was at that time, the actual loan a borrower would obtain on a $6,000 house would not be 95 per cent of the first $2,000, 85 per cent of the next $2,000 and 70 per cent of the balance, as would appear at first sight, but rather 67 per cent of the cost of building that house today. Since I understand it has always been the practice of private mortgage companies to lend up to 60 per cent of the value of a house, this act is not doing as much good as might appear on the surface. Instead of getting 83 per cent of the cost of construction, as would appear to be the case, the borrower actually gets only about 67 per cent, so that in the case of a $6,000 house he must put up about $2,000. To change the section of the act which places a ceiling on the amount of the loan, to revise that ceiling upward by five per cent in the case of a $4,000 house and seven and a half per cent in the case of a $6,000 house, as the minister is proposing to do, in my opinion will not do as much good as would be done by an upward revision of the cost per

National Housing Act
square foot upon which the lending value is based. Since the lowest cost per square foot under integrated housing in Vancouver is now, as far as I know, something like $5.65, and the cost per square foot in the case of houses built under the National Housing Act but not under the integrated scheme would be from $6 to $7 or $8 per square foot, I think this $4.62 is the figure the minister should raise at the present time. I should like to ask whether he will give the committee the present cost per square foot upon which the lending value is based under the National Housing Act and whether, if it is still $4.62, he wlil be prepared substantially to increase it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sorry; at the moment I have not the figure at my finger-tips, but I shall be glad to get it and have it when we reassemble at eight o'clock. I believe it varies in the various sections of Canada. It is revised from time to time, to keep in step with realistic building costs. But I cannot tell my hon. friend what it is for the Vancouver district at the present time. I shall get the information for him, and have it available at eight o'clock.
Then, as regards meetings between the cities, the provinces and the federal government, to place the responsibility for housing, let me say that there is no doubt whatever as to where the responsibility for housing rests. The British North America Act states that responsibility for property and civil rights shall rest with the provinces, which places the immediate problem with the municipalities The federal government has accepted a responsibility for dislocation of population during the war, and for the providing of housing for returned veterans.
We have had cooperation from cities and provinces in varying degrees. Some cities and some provinces have been most cooperative, and have undertaken almost anything the dominion has asked them to do. Other provinces and other cities have not been so cooperative. The major difficulty in many cities is the assembling of the land, which is a joint responsibility of the city and the province.
For example, as I have said before, in Toronto there is hardly a square inch of land inside the city limits which would be available for low-cost housing; and that city cannot annex adjoining land which would be available for low-cost housing, without the cooperation of the province. I believe consideration is being given to that problem, and I mention it only as being typical of many cities.
The position of the federal government is quite clear. We seldom refuse an invitation from a city to build Wartime Housing in that city. That involves certain cooperation from the city, by way of making available suitable property, and in the fixing of a tax rate compatible with the type of housing that Wartime Housing builds. But I believe that, in meeting all requests for that type of housing, the dominion is going a long way toward discharging any responsibility it has in the field of housing.
Then, the federal government has accepted the responsibility for making available low-cost money for private home building. Under the National Housing Act funds for housing are being made available at rates lower than have ever obtained up to this time. Furthermore, it has instituted the integrated housing plan, which provides assistance to builders who are willing to limit their profits to a proportion that the crown believes reasonable. In that way the government has taken direct action by making available cheap money for private building, and in the field of government-sponsored integrated housing, and by guaranteeing the builder against loss, if the builder will guarantee the purchaser against excessive profit; and by offering to build Wartime Housing when requests are made by cities, and when the need is real.
What further cooperation can reasonably be asked of the federal government, I am not sure. It hardly seems to me that the government could be in closer contact with the provinces and cities than it is at the present time. I can assure my hon. friend that if either cities or provincial governments wish to sit down with the federal government to work out a concrete proposal, the federal government will be very glad to participate.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: When the minister brings in figures with respect to the lending value per square foot, could he bring in a figure showing cost per square foot in Vancouver, and in any other city concerning which he produces lending value figures?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Last year the minister said that in his opinion the cost of construction had increased 150 per cent over 1939. It was on that ground, I believe, that he raised by ten per cent the lending value in cost per square foot. Today he has referred to the fact that prices and costs are much higher than they were a year ago. Will he say what percentage over 1939 costs of construction have reached at this time?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be glad to give that.
National Housing Act


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The minister mentioned that the amendment to the act will depend upon the exercise of control over the end price. I understand this is going to be an amendment to the National Housing Act, and that therefore it will not operate as price control under bill No. 104, which has just been passed. I should understand that this would be a permanent provision. Will he explain the nature of this control over the end price, as it is to be introduced into the National Housing Act?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I know of no amendment to the National Housing Act to limit price. The price limitation comes under the integrated housing plan, where the builder agrees with the government, prior to undertaking construction, to make houses available for sale at a certain price, which involves a known amount for contractors' profit. In that case the government guarantees to buy the house from the contractor at his cost, that is, the predetermined cost, in the event that he cannot sell it privately. The contractor agrees to sell to the veteran at another price, which involves a profit which the government considers reasonable. That is the plan to which I referred, providing limited profit.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I thought I was following the minister closely in his statement this afternoon, and it was my understanding that when he referred to the ratio of loan to lending value he said that this increase of ninety-five per cent for houses with a lending value of 84,000 and ninety per cent for those with a lending value of 86,000 would depend upon control being placed over the end price.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Surely that requires an amendment to the National Housing Act.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; it refers to housebuilding under the integrated plan.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I see.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My recollection-and I shall ask permission to correct myself if I am wrong-is that houses built under Wartime Housing, in general, are built slightly under their lending value; and houses built under the integrated plan are built at not more than five to ten per cent over the lending value. That is my recollection. I presume it does not apply universally. Private buildings, where there is no cost limitation, depend largely upon the profit that the contractor expects to get through the sale of his house. That is beyond the control of the government. For instance, on the $8,000 house, which my hon. friend suggests is $2,000 over the lend-

ing value, I would presume that a large part of that $2,000 is the contractor's profit. Under the integrated plan there can be no such spread as that.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: In effect the amendment will be that the ratio of loan to lending value will be increased in respect of integrated housing but not in respect of normal lending under the National Housing Act.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The lending value will be the same for the same value of house. But, unless it is under the integrated plan, the government has no way of guaranteeing that the house built privately outside the plan will be sold to a buyer at a value which has any particular relation to the leading value of the house. The lending value is based on the cost of the building and not on the selling value.
Mr. NICHOLSON.: I was interested in the minister's statement that housing is certainly not a federal responsibility, and I wonder if he would indicate whether it was necessary to have an amendment to the British North America Act in order to pass the first Dominion Housing Act or latterly the National Housing Act? Were those acts regarded as interfering with provincial and municipal rights? Then I should like the minister to make a statement with regard to the government's policy as to subsidies. I understood him to say that he personally was opposed to subsidies, but it appeal's to me that by these amendments he is providing subsidies to the insurance companies. At least they are being guaranteed that they cannot lose on their investment and if that is not a subsidy I do not know how one could describe it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I said that under the British North America Act the primary responsibility for housing rests with the provinces, since housing comes within the field of property and civil rights. However there is nothing in the British North America Act that prevents the federal government from assisting in housing. Old age pensions are also a matter of property and civil rights and undoubtedly are the primary responsibility of the provinces; yet the federal government contributes to old age pensions.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Then there is nothing to stop you from doing a really good job if you want to?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is nothing to stop us from helping to any extent we want to, but that does not reverse the principle that under the British North America Act the primary responsibility for housing rests with the pro-

National Housing Act
vinces. As far as subsidies go, a fine line can be drawn. We can say perhaps that Wartime Housing is subsidized due to the fact that it enjoys somewhat lower taxes than would be considered an economic level in a city. It also enjoys low-cost land which would have a commercial value far greater than the nominal cost paid by Wartime Housing. Those are subsidies, if you like. They are reasonable subsidies, having in mind that the government is paying the full cost of constructing the house. However, if my hon. friend will read certain papers he will find that it was stated here in Ottawa that the city was subsidizing Wartime Housing through giving free lots and installing services. I think it is desirable to keep away from cash subsidies to the greatest extent possible. A policy of subsidization may be all right in a time, of emergency but it is not desirable as a continuing policy'.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Could the minister
indicate the number of housing units which will be built as a result of these amendments? Am I not correct in assuming that, by and large, these houses will be made available to people in the upper income brackets?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is not the intention; the intention is to provide housing for all the people of Canada.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: At what rate per month?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The rate for wartime houses still runs from S21 to $35 a month. Integrated houses are built for sale at reasonable figures. It is the intention of the government to finance housing that is within the reach of all people in Canada.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The minister is adopting a new principle here. We are being asked to guarantee private companies a minimum of two per cent, and I think the minister should give some indication as to what the plans are, how many houses will be built for rent and at what monthly rent?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Under the National Housing
Act the government guarantees the lending institutions against loss, but that provision applies only to the value of developed property. The amendment would provide that the cost of assembling the land may also be guaranteed by the federal government. This is simply an extension of the present policy.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: That is correct, but
I think I am also correct in saying that so far the federal government has not been asked to pay anything, that there have not been any losses incurred. We are now going into the business of buying land and there is
nothing to prevent these lending institutions from bailing out some of their real estate and asking the taxpayers to carry the burden. I think we should have some indication as to what the plans are that have been discussed and what rentals will be charged.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My' hon. friend will find it
expressly stated in the bill that the purchase of land is subject to the approval of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The location of the land, and the prices paid, must be approved before a loan will be granted for the assembling of the land. The government recognizes that building is definitely being retarded on account of the fact that in certain cities it is impossible to buy serviced land. Cities are not extending their services as rapidly as is required to meet their housing needs. The provisions which will be inserted in the act will enable private lending institutions to assemble land under government guarantee, after the project has been approved by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
For example, one of the leading life insurance companies is planning to assemble some desirable building property near the city of Toronto and make it available to builders at a reasonable cost. If the project is carried out, a builder who desires to build in that area will be able to buy individual lots which are properly serviced, such as are not available at the present time.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I still have had no
indication from the minister as to what type of housing will be available as a result of the change. I am advancing the argument that the housing which will be available will cost people $75 a month or more, and I wish the minister would indicate that I am wrong, that he is planning to make housing available at $25 or $30 a month. The evidence is that we are short of housing for people who cannot afford to pay even $25 a month. I think the amendments to the act should make some provision for people who just cannot afford to look at houses costing $75 a month.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The National Housing Act
has nothing to do with housing that is rented for $75 a month and over. As I have stated before, the National Housing Act is concerned with housing that can be rented for $70 a month and under. All I can say about rentals is that Wartime Housing is still building houses that rent from $21 to $35 a month. Housing being erected under the integrated plan usually costs $6,000 or less per unit. They are both low-cost projects. The land assembly would be for the purpose of low-cost housing.
National Housing Act

It is impossible to say at the moment just what will be built on the lots but certainly it will not be expensive houses.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I promised to answer the
hon. member's request for information about lending values in Vancouver. I would point out that allowance in lending value is made for varying types of houses, depending upon the type of construction, quality and other factors. For instance, in the case of bungalows in Vancouver, our basic costs used by the corporation as a basis upon which lending values are determined, show a range from $4.10 to $5.60 for a bungalow of frame and stucco, with hot air heating, open fireplace, and tile or equal bathroom floor with no garage. Generally the larger the size of the bungalow, the lower the basic cost per square foot. These figures are adjusted in accordance with the quality, suitability of layout, and even location of the residence. I would point out to the hon. member that the agreed sale price under an integrated agreement is a maximum of 110 per cent of the lending value. The amount of the repurchase price under the government guarantee to the builder amounts to 100 per cent of the lending value plus carrying charges between the time of completion and the time of the implementing of the guarantee.
Pressures continue to be placed upon us to increase lending values. However we feel that included in today's actual costs are a number of items which should not properly be capitalized into long-term mortgage debt. For this reason we are unwilling to raise our lending values even to the level of the agreed sale price under the integrated plan.
The hon. member has also asked for our estimate of present building costs as compared with the pre-war level. With all the unusual items which today add to present building costs, this figure can be established only in general range. As at February, 1947, we believe that the average cost of residential construction is of the order of 157 per cent to 173 per cent of the 1935-39 base. I recall that the hon. member suggested that I said building costs had risen 150 per cent. That is, of course, not the case. The index stood at 150 per cent instead of 100 per cent as of the 1935-39 range. My statement was that costs of building had increased 50 per cent. It has now increased from 58 per cent to 73 per cent of the 1935-39 base. This wide range

indicates a varying amount of increase by areas. I may say, however, that, although the absolute cost of small residences per square foot is not as high in Vancouver as in other sections of the country largely because of climatic conditions, nevertheless the ratio of increase in the present cost level over the 1935-39 base is probably higher on the Pacific coast than in any other section of the country.
The hon. member has asked whether the increased ratio of loan as provided in the new legislation applies to all National Housing Act loans, or whether its application will be limited to houses upon which there is some control on the end sale price. The latter is the case, and the use of the increased ratio of loan to lending value will be subject to regulations established by the governor in council.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I believe I asked one
other question. What was the actual cost per square foot of building a similar bungalow in Vancouver? I have the lending value per square foot. Can the minister give an approximation of the actual costs?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I said that under the integrated plan the sale price is 110 per cent of lending value, so that the cost must be close to the lending value. The sale price allows for a profit to the builder. It depends, however, on the builder. There are builders in Vancouver who are quite willing to sell under the integrated plan at 105 per cent of lending value. Other builders cannot approach that by a considerable margin. In other words, it depends to a good deal on the skill of the builder.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The proposed increase of five per cent to 7J per cent will not assist anyone other than the builder under the integrated scheme. Has the minister any figure on the going cost per square foot of an ordinary home under the National Housing Act, not under the integrated scheme?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The sale price of houses built under the National Housing Act without price limitation is running about 126 per cent of lending value. Of course we have no way of knowing what the builders cost is, but we believe there is quite a considerable margin of profit in the price.


Thomas Reid: Under the old act, if the minister will remember, many statements had been made and cases had arisen where the corporation would lend in one city or town and not in another. During the time I was home at Easter, complaints were made to me that no one could, under the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, procure

National Housing Act
a loan in the municipality of Burnaby. I was surprised at that because, when the act went through, we were given assurance that there would be no discrimination in districts. Has the minister any information on the matter? If not, would he take this as a notice and look into the matter, because the complaints were made to me in good faith by those who went into Vancouver and made application to build under this scheme and were refused.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I find it hard to understand that situation in Burnaby because we have 500 loans in one project in that municipality. However hon. members will notice that, under the amendments now being considered by the committee, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has taken power to lend directly rather than through the lending institutions. This will enable the government, in appropriate cases, to make housing loans in any part of Canada, regardless of whether it is a part favoured by the lending institutions or otherwise.


Thomas Reid: I am glad to have that information.


John Horne Blackmore: Is there any provision for lending money to individual builders? Suppose a man wants to borrow money on his own account and build his own house without the intervention of any agency whatsoever; has the government considered any measures whereby that sort of thing can be met?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are many loans of that type. Under the provisions of the amendment the government can lend to an individual builder directly, although in many cases it may be convenient to make the loan through a lending institution.


John Horne Blackmore: What are the terms upon which the government would lend money in such cases?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Exactly the same terms as through the lending institution, a loan at 4i per cent.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I gather that this legislation is designed to relieve the housing shortage and get more houses built. Can the minister give the results of the conversations and discussions between the lending institutions and the department and indicate the approximate number of bousing units which are to be provided and their price range?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sorry I cannot give the conversations with the lending institutions because I have not talked with any of them. The government is setting an objective of 83166-171
SO.OOO completed houses in 1947, and we have every expectation of reaching that objective.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: It hardly seems reasonable that this legislation would be brought down unless some use were to be made of it. I gather that there must be some interest shown by the lending institutions or we would not have this measure before us. Can the minister indicate where it is proposed to make use of the amendment and how many units are expected to be completed in 1947 and 1948 if this goes through?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This legislation has been proposed by the government with the thought that it will assist in the building of low-cost housing and widen the range of those who are able to take advantage of the act. The principle of land assembly we believe to be important and the lending institutions agree with us. After all, the first requisite for housing is suitable land on which to put the housing. Our objective of SO.OOO houses in 1947 has been set, having in view the ability of the construction industry to assemble materials and complete that number of houses.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Will the minister say how many municipalities in Canada have made representations to the government with a view to getting these benefits which will be available to lending institutions and indicate what sort of reception they have received? I imagine that if some municipalities had this sort of provision made for them they would be prepared to give an undertaking to build a specific number of houses. The hon. member for Halifax will agree that they have a labour problem and a housing problem in his district, and nearly every other large city in. Canada is short of housing. I imagine that if this opportunity were afforded to the municipalities and they could be assured of the return of the principal invested in land and in improvements and a guarantee of two per cent on their investment, a great many municipalities would give an undertaking that there would be houses built in the near future. I understand that some municipalities have made representations with a view to getting these benefits. W ould the minister indicate how many there have been?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have never heard of any municipality in the Dominion of Canada undertaking to build any houses. So far as I know, no municipality has.
Mr. Ma-cINNIS: Perhaps I might say a word on that. I had a question on the order paper the other day. and the parliamenatry assistant to the minister and the president

National Housing Act

of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation gave me some information which the committee might like to have. My question could not be answered at it appeared, on the order paper, but they kindly gave me information along the lines I asked for. It shows that quite a number of municipalities in Canada have passed resolutions asking the dominion government to amend the National Housing Act so as to make funds available to the municipalities. Resolutions ji&ve been passed, for example, by the city of London, the city of Brandon, the district of Burnaby in British Columbia, the city of Edmonton, the city of Hamilton, the city of Prince Albert and the city of Regina in Saskatchewan, the township of Stamford in Ontario, the city of Toronto, the city of Winnipeg, the city of Windsor, and two resolutions by the city of Vancouver. Perhaps I might read one which is fairly short and typical, although the resolutions are not similar in all respects. This resolution was passed by the city council of Toronto:
That the dominion government be petitioned to bring in new housing legislation along the lines of public low-rental housing legislation in effect in England and the United States and providing for federal loans up to 90 per cent of the construction costs of low-rent housing projects to be built and managed by proper municipal housing authorities and further providing for annual federal subsidies to such housing authorities up to three per cent of development cost to enable such housing to be rented to low-income families.
As I said, no two resolutions are alike, but this one is typical.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It may be typical of city councils to pass resolutions, but I would point out that, outside the province of Saskatchewan, no municipality in Canada has authority under its charter to enter into a housing project. The city of Toronto obtained authority from the electors to enter into the Regents Park project, and that is the only exception so far as I know, except that blanket authority has been given to the municipalities in Saskatchewan. However, it has been the feeling of the government that if a city wants to go into housing the authority that provides the money should make the investment and supervise its administration. The history of municipalities in the housing field has not been entirely . happy, although there have been notable exceptions. Certain cities have made a great success of municipal housing projects, but a far greater number have made a dismal failure. The federal government believes it has an efficient administration for the building and administering of housing and that any federal money to be spent in that

field should be spent through the administrative machinery set up by the federal government.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: To be logical, the same principle should be carried out with the life insurance companies if they want to go into the housing business. T think the federal government has just as much right to make money available to municipalities for housing as to life insurance companies. The resolution says that the purpose is:
... to empower life insurance, trust and loan companies to purchase, improve and sell land to be used for residential housing developments, and to authorize Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to guarantee to such companies the return of the principal invested in such land and improvements, together with interest thereon at a rate not to exceed two per centum per annum.
I cannot imagine any municipality in Canada that would not consider this a very good proposal to be made to them. I know there are two cities in Saskatchewan which would be prepared to go along now because they have enabling legislation. There is a shortage, and resolutions have been passed. I know the experience in municipal housing in Canada was not a very successful one following the last war; but we have such an organization as Wartime Housing. In spite of previous criticisms I have made of Wartime Housing, there has not been any question about the administration or of the efficiency of that organization.
In all countries in the world we have had some valuable experiences since 1918 and 1925. In the United States, in Great Britain, in Sweden-as a matter of fact, in nearly every important country with the exception of Canada-we have had experience where local authorities have gone into housing and made an outstanding success of it. I am greatly disappointed that the minister is not prepared to give to local and provincial authorities at least as favourable a break as he is prepared to give to life insurance companies. I know it is now too late for many of the cities to get enabling legislation through for 1947, but when this bill is going through, I cannot see any reason why we could not establish the right of the local authorities to get at least the same consideration as the lending institutions get. I would say that the local authorities should get greater consideration because they will be driven, by public opinion, to provide housing for people in the lower brackets, whereas the life insurance companies will be able to cater to the people who supply the funds to life insurance companies and will be able to select their risks, and, as in

National Housing Act
the past, they will be able to make their investments so that the federal government has not any serious financial risks. Will the minister indicate if he would consider broadening the legislation to make available to municipalities the benefits which he is proposing for the lending institutions?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The cities, municipalities and provinces of this country are today in better financial shape than ever before in their history. They are able to borrow money at lower rates than ever before in their history. There is no reason why one taxing authority should subsidize another taxing authority to take on obligations in the field of the latter. If the provinces and municipalities wish to go into the housing business, I do not know of a thing to stop them; on the contrary, I believe they would be discharging a duty which is theirs and not that of the federal government.


Angus MacInnis: I do not know whether it would be profitable to discuss the financial position of the municipalities at the present time. The municipalities are at present, apparently prosperous, but the prosperity is more apparent than real. They are apparently prosperous because they did1 not do any repair or construction work during the war period. I think the minister knows that. Today every municipality in Canada, I am quite satisfied, has a backlog of repairs, services and construction which it cannot possibly meet with its present limited taxation powers. The minister said before the dinner recess, I think, that there could be cooperation between the dominion, the province and the municipality in this matter. I think the dominion government has done considerable; but, so far as my information goes, the provinces have not done anything at all, and the municipalities have not done a great deal more. But the municipalities have not the taxing resources which will enable them to carry on a project of this kind. I agree with the hon. member for Mackenzie that the same assistance or the same privileges should be given to the municipalities as are given to the insurance, trust and loan 'companies which, in my opinion, according to this resolution, are not taking any risks whatsoever; the government is taking the whole risk. If the same privileges were given to the municipalities I believe that they would accept them.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: A moment ago I think the minister suggested that I was wrong in
saying that he had said last year that costs of construction had gone up 150 per cent.
83166-171J
I have what he said on July 22 last; at page 3683 of Hansard he is reported as follows:
Three steps could be taken tp help meet this problem:
First, increase lending values to the current level of building costs which is of the order of 150 per cent of the 1939 level, with variations in different parts of the country.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend will agree that, taking the 1939 level as 100 per cent, 150 per cent represents a fifty per cent increase.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Oh, yes. I do not think I suggested anything different.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If I understood you to say anything different I am sure you did not intend it. I am sure you intended to say a fifty per cent increase instead of a 150 per cent increase.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I intended only to use the minister's own words.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Quite so.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: But I did not rise only to straighten that point out. I intend to read on and come back to the point I was asking questions about before. The minister went on to say:
This has been done by the corporation increasing lending values by an additional 8 per cent as from April 29, 1946, so as to bring lending values into line with cost levels. We believe that present lending values are very close to the actual cost of building plus a fair builder's profit, but do not make allowance for extra costs such as delays in delivery of materials, inefficient labour and the very long profit being taken by some builders. We are unwilling to make loans on extra costs of this kind.
It was just at that time, I think, that the minister introduced the integrated scheme. I have made a calculation based on what he said a moment ago about present-day costs being 126 per cent of lending value, and I find that under the ordinary scheme, without using the integrated housing, the actual loan made will be, as I take it, 75 per cent of 83 per cent of the lending value, which is only 62 per cent of the cost of construction. This will mean that in all houses not built under the integrated scheme, 38 per cent will be required to be put up by the owner.
I can very well appreciate the minister's reasons for bringing in the integrated scheme. But surely materials are-or we hope they are [DOT]-in a little better supply than they were a year ago and are going to get continually into better supply; labour will become more efficient; and surely the long profit the minister complains about is, in many cases,
National Housing Act

due to the unwillingness of the builder to take a risk on delay and inexperienced labour. He must cover himself, and he will be quite prepared to take a smaller profit if he can be sure of covering his contract. When I look at the figures I find that, of the loans approved last year, less than one-third were integrated loans. I want to leave with the minister the thought that, unless everybody turns over to the integrated scheme-which they perhaps will not do, even though perhaps they could-during this coming year, he should give consideration to increasing that lending value, because right now you are not getting much more out of the National Housing Act loans than you would get on a private loan before the scheme ever came into being. I should like to ask the minister now what his experience is with regard to integrated housing. Are more and more builders coming under the scheme? Is there any limit to the number who may come in? What considerations govern the minister and his officials in permitting builders to operate under integrated housing? What stamp of approval must be put on the builder before he is considered eligible to come under the integrated scheme?


Clarence Decatur Howe: About 3,000 units were signed up under the integrated' scheme last year, and present prospects are that about six to seven thousand will be signed up this year. The only limitation in accepting a contractor under the integrated housing plan is whether he can make the price; in other words, if ha can offer a cost that is acceptable under that plan. Some builders cannot do so; it costs them more money, but there is no reason why any efficient builder canno-t come under the integrated plan if he wishes to do so and is willing to accept the profit limitation. If a contractor wants to go after big profits and! somebody else wants to support him in that cause, there is nothing we can do about the matter, but the house built under such an arrangement is no better than the house built undter the integrated plan. If it costs the buyer fifteen or twenty per cent more, the buyer is out that much and the state has no obligation in the matter.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Could the minister say what percentage of the builders in Vancouver, for instance, would be building under integrated housing and what percentage under the normal system? Has he any figures on that?
Mr. HOWE; By units, probably about twenty per cent would be under the integrated system, and about eighty per cent under the National Housing Act.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: But can the minister tell me how many builders are taking advantage of the plan?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Ten builders in the Vancouver area are taking advantage of the integrated plan.


Mr. TIMMINS:: From what the minister has said from time to time with respect to the building organizations under the control of Central Housing I have taken it that fundamentally and primarily these schemes are for the. purpose of providing homes for veterans. On Friday last I made a statement based on a report appearing in the Financial Post, that integrated housing had been found1 unworkable as far as veterans' preference was concerned in some areas of Canada, and that for this reason Central Mortgage was permitting the builders to dispose, of the. houses to civilians in the first instance, we will say, as against veterans. I should like to know from the minister whether the statement I made, based on the newspaper report, was correct; if so, what are the areas where the veterans preference has been dropped in respect of integrated housing, and whether a new policy has been established in that regard.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am told that the only integrated project where the veterans preference has been lifted is at West Kildonan, Manitoba, where there were some larger houses in which the veterans did not show an interest. There is a complete veterans preference for houses under the integrated plan, but if there is no demand from veterans, it will be the policy to offer them to civilians.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: How long does a builder have to advertise a house to veterans before he may turn around and sell it to a civilian?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The rule is six months, unless it is evident to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that there will be no demand in that area from veterans.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: Does that mean the builder would have to hold the house for six months before he could sell to a civilian?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: Then the hon. member for Vaneouver-Burrard asked as to the number of builders in Vancouver who were under the integrated plan as contrasted with ordinary builders. I understand that in the Toronto area only about nine builders are under the integrated plan, whereas there are some 450 builders in the whole Toronto and York area. Could the minister tell the committee what reason he has for expecting that the extension of this, plan will bring more builders in the Toronto area under it.

National Housing Act


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will make this prediction for my hon. friend, that there will be many more builders under the integrated plan as houses sell less freely at the present exorbitant prices being charged by builders.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: Just to clear the record, I take it that this resolution is not so much an attempt on the part of the loan companies and the insurance companies to enter this particular field as it is an expression of the desire on the part of the government to see that they take their proper share of the responsibility for homes. Following that up, I take it that the cost of making the original survey of the land, if an insurance company takes on such a project; the cost of preparing the plan, the cost of presenting that plan to the planning board, the cost of sewers, sidewalks, pavements and all those things will come within the word "improve" as used in this resolution and will form part of the principal investment; and I take it that the government is guaranteeing that their financial return will be at least two per cent on that money as well as the other money the company may put up. In addition, is there any check on how much money the insurance companies or loan companies may make on these projects? Are they limited to two per cent, or what is the check on companies coming under this procedure?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The insurance companies are limited to two per cent. Any profit beyond that must be returned to the crown.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I have a question to ask in regard to these two family units. If a man owns a house which he rents, he is allowed to deduct taxes and carrying charges from his income tax. What is to be the position of a man who lives in one part of a two-family unit which he owns? Supposing the house costs $6,000. The carrying charges would be $280 or perhaps a little less; the taxes would be probably $200, making a total of $480. What arrangement can or will be made in regard to his income tax? After all, he will be living in part of that property, so what will be his position?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sure I do not know. We have a tax expert here, and without an official ruling from the income tax branch I would not want to give an opinion.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I draw it to the minister's attention because it is important to know just what the situation is to be, whether, if he is living in the house, he will be allowed half of the carrying charges.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are thousands of those cases, particularly in Quebec. I am sure the
income tax branch has a ruling on the subject. I can only suggest that my hon. friend might ask the Minister of National Revenue.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: The minister said that in the West Kildonan area the veterans preference has been dropped. There is a distinct shortage of veterans houses in that area. What is the value of those houses? I presume they were dropped because they were out of reach of the ordinary veteran.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The storey and a half house is about $6,100 a house.


James Arthur Ross: And thetre are no applications from veterans; is that the reason for dropping it in the area?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Mr. BREITHAUPT:: In my district Housing Enterprises are doing very fine work. They are building quite a few fine houses, but greatly above the cost which some of the people requiring them can pay.
I have a question I should like to ask the minister, and it is this: With construction cost increases indicated by him, undoubtedly there are many veterans and others who would have been interested in renting homes constructed by Housing Enterprises Limited, or under the integrated housing plan, and who may now wish to turn to homes built under a plan perhaps more within their financial reach. Is Wartime Housing being continued? If so, has any change taken place in the plans of construction whereby basements and furnaces are now being provided for those who require comfortable houses at more reasonable rentals than are possible under other plans?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Wartime Housing is certainly being continued. It has been the policy of Wartime Housing to keep to the low-cost range, for obvious reasons. It is a low-cost rental product. Exceptions have been made where, for special reasons, basements have been installed. But a fairly general answer to the question asked is that the policy remains unchanged, and Wartime Houses are built without basements.


Mr. McMASTER:: The minister spoke about the cost being $4.10 per square foot. I have always heard of the cost of a house being computed on a cubic foot basis. I should like to know what he means by a cost of $4.10 per square foot. Let me give an example. Let us take a one-storey building, 24 x 50, which is the favourite size in Wartime Housing. Does that mean that this can be built on a basis of $4.10 for the square footage?
National Housing Act


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is the floor area, measuring the outside dimensions of the house. But if the hon. member is used to the cubing method, if he will ta.ke that figure and multiply it by eighteen, or divide it by eighteen as the case may be, he will get the same result. The ratio is about 18 to 1.


William Alexander McMaster: It is about twenty-three cents a cubic foot.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That sounds about right.


William Alexander McMaster: I doubt if you can do it. You would have lots of buyers. If you take it on the illustration I have given, and figure at $4.10 per square foot, even for a one-storey building, you will still have lots of buyers. There will be no trouble about that.


Thomas John Bentley: Would the minister mind if I ask for some help, on behalf of the people I represent. I am asking this seriously, and I hope he will answer seriously, if he can. I agree with what has been said on behalf of all low-income earners in Canada, and I share the concern which has been expressed. At the present time I am speaking on behalf of people who are greatly concerned about their own position. I have listened to questions asked by various members, and the replies made by the minister. I want him to tell me if I am incorrect in my understanding of what he said, when I say I understood him to say certain things. First, I believe the minister said that the government policy was not to have any more cash subsidies; is that correct? The government does not believe in any more cash subsidies for housing? The minister says nothing, so I take it that that is correct.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What does the hon. member mean by "any more"?


Thomas John Bentley: Well, "any"; I will take out "more".


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are subsidizing housing,
yes. We are subsidizing emergency housing. I suggest that the hon. member might not lay down any policy, other than the policy which I am explaining at the present time.


Thomas John Bentley: I am not laying down a policy.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would not suggest that
he set out what the government believes. That is something that is decided from day to day.


Thomas John Bentley: I am trying to have the minister put me right, if I am wrong in my understanding. He said this afternoon-and I think Hansard will bear this out when it is read tomorrow-that the government did 
not want to use any cash subsidies for government housing, or something to that effect. Is that correct, so far?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Thomas John Bentley: Also, the other day,
during the discussion on Bill No. 104, he told us that prices of lumber were going to rise, to compensate lumber producers for any loss they might suffer in the export market. Is that correct? Now, with those things in mind, and realizing, as he should, that there are a great many people, particularly in the city I come from, who are in the average or lower earning groups, I should like him to answer my question. That will materially affect the permanent situation, because we have no speculative interests there, and no likelihood of any great appreciation in capital. There may be an increase today in the book value of a house a man may own, as compared with the value of ten years ago. He may have a house that he built for $5,01X1, which he could sell today for $10,000. He could leave one house, but he would have to pay $10,000 for another one, in a different location, and would be only changing his position, rather than his capital standing.
Another reason that there will not likely be any great amount of money earned by the average person there is that our business is small business. They exist only by virtue of the fact that they serve the people in the Surrounding area. If the farming community works and produces it is able to buy the services and goods provided bjr the merchants and the other people in our city, but not in quantities sufficient to create riches, or any high salaried positions.
The veterans coming back are in this class. They are taking jobs which will range from $100 to possibly $150 a month. Only a few of the more highly trained will get more than that. Most of them will be unlikely, even in a lifetime, to arrive at a position where they will earn more than $2,000 or $2,400. Possibly a few will go to $3,000, but very few will go above that. The earnings will be along the lines I have indicated. A great many of them will probably remain in the $150 a month class.
I should like the minister now, in all seriousness, to tell me this:	If he were one
of those men in that position, if he were a veteran back there now-and these are the people who are causing the legion such great concern-and if he were not in the position he occupies today, if he can imagine that, and were in the position of one of those veterans, how would he go about getting one of those homes? Would he make a cash payment,

National Housing Act
and hope to be able to pay it oft? If he will tell us that, and put it on the record, it will be a good thing for those who do not read the record, and also for those who do read it, and who need advice from a competent man.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I presume the problem of acquiring a home has not changed greatly since the time my hon. friend and I were being married and were trying to acquire homes. We rented until we saved enough money to make payments on our homes. Then we made the payments, took out mortgages, and for the next few years we saved to pay off those mortgages.
I presume anyone who builds a home today is in much the same position. No great magic that I know of has been introduced into the situation.
If I may say another word to the hon. member for Higjh Park, the figure of $4.65 per square foot wdiieh I mentioned was for a fair sized bungalow in Vancouver. A bungalow in Vancouver has nothing in common with housing in High Park. The lending value of the type of house that would be built in High Park would be considerably higher than the figure I mentioned.


William Alexander McMaster: I notice that the time for payment has been increased from 20 to 30 years, and perhaps the minister could give me the amount per month per $1,000 for the 20-year period and for the 30-year period.


Clarence Decatur Howe: For the 20-year period it would be $6.30 per $1,000 per month and for the 30-year period it is $5.09 per month.


Mr. POULIOT:: Are home plans still available in the department?


Clarence Decatur Howe: A new book of plans has been issued which, we believe, is bigger and better than the previous books. I shall be glad to supply my hon. friend with as many copies as he wishes, priced at $1 per book.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister, but I have another suggestion. I think eveiy member of the committee is doing his best to help the minister and his department solve this grave and serious question of housing. Any man, whether he be a military man or a civilian, who desires to build a home wants to be informed about the conditions he must meet in order to take advantage of the legislation. At the present time this legislation is quite obscure to many people I suggest that a short, concise and complete booklet should be issued to indicate to the man on the
street how he can take advantage of the provisions of this law and build a home for himself and his family.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is nothing like giving service to my hon. friend. I have here in book form exactly the information he wants and I shall be glad to send it to him. It is printed in English and French. This copy happens to be in English. Since the hon. member is perfectly bilingual, I am sure he will be able to use it.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I do not know whether the Minister of National Revenue heard me ask the minister of reconstruction what allowance in income tax would be made to a man who built a two-family house and lived in one part himself, but if not I should like him to tell me what such a man could deduct for taxes, carrying charges, depreciation and so on.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister for the booklet he has sent me since it seems to be most interesting, although I have not had time to read it all. I should like to suggest that when a publication of the importance of this one is put out his officials should send it to us. I have received many publications and, while I do not keep them all, I 'have not returned one. I would be obliged if, in the future, they would send us things like this when they are off the press.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Howe thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 176, to amend the National Housing Act, 1944.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PENITENTIARY ACT


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go, into committee to consider the following resolution:
That a bill be presented to the house to amend the Penitentiary Act to make provision, inter alia, for the appointment of a commissioner and two deputy commissioners and for the payment of such salaries thereto as are approved by the governor in council; and that the Civil Service Superannuation Act shall apply to such commissioner and deputy commissioners.
John Ritchie MacNicol: A motion similar to this, dealing with, penitentiaries, has been before the house for almost ten years and1 it is about time that some action was taken. I remember very well listening to the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, one of the ablest men who ever sat in this house, a
Penitentiary Act

most distinguished gentleman. What used to amaze me was his facility to speak both languages and his loyalty to all that this country stands for. I remember the last time I heard him speak he stood up and said, "I cannot go on any longer," or words to that effect, "unless such and such a resolution is passed".
I do not know whether that was in 1937 or 1939, but I have here Hansard for 1938 and I am going to read what he said on that occasion when he rose on the orders of the day. Apparently a bill which had been passed by this house had been turned down in the senate, and he said:
Before the orders of the day are called I wish to make a statement concerning the bill to amend the Penitentiaries Act which was adopted by this house unanimously but will now fail to be placed on the statutes of this session. The government is disappointed and I, personally, am sorry, indeed very sorry. When I stated in this house on my responsibility as Minister of Justice that I needed the proposed change for the proper administration of penitentiaries, the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) declared that he waived all his objections to the bill because of that statement.
What I regret^ more particularly is that this legislation involving a social question of momentous importance, has been rejected in another place . . .
Apparently this has been going on since 1938 up to the present. I do hope the minister gets whatever he wants if it will help him to bring about reforms in the administration of the penitentiaries. I have no doubt that he was in his seat when the late right hon. gentleman made the statement I have just read. I just wonder why something cannot be done. We have been told every year that it is because of the provinces; it is because of the dual control over crime. I am not familiar enough with it to know just why it is. I do know that the federal government controls penitentiaries.
This bill calls for the appointment of a commissioner and two assistant commissioners. I have no objection to it. I should like to see it go through. I should like to see the commissioners appointed and get on with whatever has to be done. I believe everyone in the house is interested in penal reform;
I have been interested in it for years. It has been a subject of study by me for quite a few years. I have felt that after-prison care was something we were away down on, something with which we did not seem to be able to grapple, how to take care of a prisoner when he is let out of the penitentiary. If the new commissioner^ and his assistants can bring in some report to the minister under which after-care to the prisoner can be improved

above what it is today it should be done, because it is really not carried on today, except what is done by private institutions such as the big brother movement and the association of police commissioners who do interest themselves, as I know very well from my connection with the efforts in Toronto under the last chief of police we had, General Draper, who spent a lot of his time with the police association in after-prison care. That should be extended and expanded. If the minister has that in his mind I am sure that his commissioners will follow out whatever instructions he gives in that regard.
I have said that I. have been interested in this matter for a long time. I have spoken on it before. I went to England for the purpose of studying the Borstal system. The Borstal system has been in operation in England for many years and has given eminent satisfaction. I believe they wholly reclaim 58 per cent of all first offenders. That is something to aim at. I am sorry to say that here in Canada, so far as I know, that is not the case. Many young offenders who commit major crimes for which they are sent to the penitentiary, are sent among hardened criminals. Often when they come out they are frequently more criminally minded than when they went in. Surely there must be some method by which that could be improved.
The minister has read, as I have, what was said in 1946 by many organizations, that we were down near the foot of the ladder so far as prison reform is concerned; I presume I should say, so far as the reformation of criminals. Often when they come out they are frequently more criminally minded than when they went in. Surely there must be some minor jails under the provincial governments, as we have been told here, why cannot we do something? That is what I should like to know. Are the hands of the federal government so tied that nothing can be done? If not, will the commissioner and his two assistants be able to find some method that up to the present we lave not been able to put into operation to reform criminals and to cut down their being released to go out into the world again and greatly increase the number of crimes committed in the country.
I am convinced that every hon. member will go the limit to help the minister in any programme that he can bring in, including the appointment of the commissioner and his tw) assistants, to reform the method of taking care of criminals in Canada. I do not know that I can say much more. I have given the matter a lot of study. I myself went to many of the prisons in England. I stayed in them and ate in them. I stayed in them all

Penitentiary Act
day long; I was locked in to see how the men are trained and taught and how they' are reclaimed. They are separated. The first offenders, or young men, are not in the same part of the prison in Glasgow or Wakefield, near Leeds, as the hardened criminals. Whether we can do that in Canada I do not know. I shall be anxious to hear what the minister proposes or hopes will be the outcome of the legislation to be founded on this resolution. I for one-and I am sure the same can be said for all other hon. members-will support him to the limit if he brings down a programme whereby the reformation of criminals in Canada can be greatly improved over what it is today.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) is a great humanitarian. His tribute to the late Mr. Lapointe was felt by all. Hon. members are, I am sure, grateful to him for remembering a great minister of justice and for recalling what he meant at the time when he sponsored the idea of the penitentiary commission. I also remember two persons who insisted on that and who were our mutual friends, the late Harry W. Anderson of the Toronto Globe and our former colleague Miss Agnes MacPhail. They did not belong to the same political faith, but they both believed in the reformation of criminals and their change of heart after a certain period in the penitentiary.
Naturally, the purpose of the penitentiary commission was excellent. If Mr. Anderson and Miss MacPhail had not insisted so much, perhaps we would never have had such a commission; but I remember the day in the house when Miss MacPhail undertook the defence of a convict and a former minister of justice, Mr. Guthrie, took out of his pocket a record of that individual which was quite different from the description which Miss MacPhail had given of him. It is all right to be kind, but there are some convicts who are dangerous men, and there are recidivists, which proves that sometimes it is dangerous to be too kind. I will not mention minor offences and first cases of petty smuggling or things like that. That is just the spirit of adventure; but when a man goes into housebreaking or commits a crime mentioned in the criminal code, he has to be examined by doctors, and perhaps his mind is not all there. He must be treated as humanely as possible. I do not believe in galleys and the punishments of the middle-ages, in the carcan and all that. I do not believe in that system at all, because it is my deep conviction that even those who infringe upon the provisions of the criminal code and have been found guilty of a crime should be
treated just as well as lit is possible for society to permit. On this I do not believe that there is any difficulty; but there is something else. I have read the report of the commission. I remember the day in late summer when the hon. member for Vancouver South asked Mr. Lapointe, who was then Minister of Justice, why the commission had not been named. I told him plainly, in as good English as I could use, that I was responsible for it because I had told Mr. Lapointe that there were intrigues behind' the appointment of the commissioners, and Mr. Lapointe promised me that no one who had 'been on the investigating commission would be appointed to the penitentiary administrative commission. I wonder if my hon. friend remembers that. It is all on Hansard. It took place on the last occasion when Mr. Lapointe was piloting his estimates through the house as Minister of Justice. My memory of it is so good that I remember the hon. member for St. Paul's stating that evening that he wanted the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to take the place of the provincial and the municipal police. Those are recollections of past days.
At that time there were serious objections to the appointment of an administrative commission as suggested by the investigating commission. If hon. members will take the trouble to look at their report they will see that it was padded up to make a great big book. One need only look at the bibliography of the report to realize the bluff of the investigating commissioners. They mentioned in their report all the books that had been published on penitentiaries. If they had read them it would have been superfluous for them to charge so much for their travelling expenses. If they had read those books it would not have been necessary for them to visit Sing Sing and other penitentiaries. They had no reason to go there because the books gave complete information on the subject. If they went there it was because they had not read the books. But why pad the report? The expenditure was extravagant. I complained about it, and one of the commissioners told me that I was not a friend of his because I had spoken my mind in the house and said what I thought about the matter. There must be an end to that kind of vagrancy in bureaucracy.
My hon. friends are complaining all the time about bureaucracy. They say there is too much bureaucracy. Well, Mr. Speaker, this is so much more bureaucracy that we are asked to instal today. I wonder if a single member who votes for this resolution will be justified in speaking one more word against bureaucracy. Everybody has his mouth full of bureaucracy -bureaucracy here, bureaucracy there. This
Penitentiary Act

is more bureaucracy and apparently everybody is ready to swallow it. What of the people who complain of high taxation on account of bureaucracy? This is bureaucracy of ten years ago. Ten years ago the civil servants numbered 50,000; today they number 160,000, and we have not enough; we want more. There is, I know, a spirit of benevolence, of human fraternity and the brotherhood of man. That spirit certainly exists, but just the same we have to apply the axe somewhere, and I do not see how we can instal more bureaucrats in Ottawa when we have not the courage, just because of personal friendship, to dismiss anyone. I have said this already and I repeat it. The wife of such and such a bureaucrat may be a friend of the wife of such and such an official in the department.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not speaking of any one particular bureaucrat or official. I am speaking of the bureaucrat type, where the wife of the bureaucrat is the friend of the wife of the official, and their children play together. If an incompetent bureaucrat is fired the official knows very well that he will have trouble at home, because his wife will say, "Why did you fire the husband of my very dearest friend?" And then the children will come and say, "Daddy, daddy, daddy." They will repeat it several times, and then they will cry because they will be unable to play with their little friends who will be mad at them because their father was fired by the official. That is how we go on. All that has been said about bureaucracy has been platonic, and if members are sincere they must vote against the proposal before us. Why not make a reduction of personnel in the Department of Justice, so that there will be no more expenditure to the public account of such schemes which have not been put in force for ten years. We have waited, so long and during that time the wave of bureaucracy has been swelling higher and1 higher all the time. Now on the crest of the wave we want to put the cork on the penitentiary commission-very high on the crest of the wave. More bureaucracy.
I sympathize with the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), who is a personal friend of mine and for whom I have a great admiration, but I do not think he is logical. I see my hon. friend the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) sitting next to him. I also have a great admiration for him and he is a personal friend of mine. I have con-

sideration and esteem for him, but I find that he and the hon. member for Davenport are most illogical.


Mr. GREEN:: I have not said a word.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not a mind reader, but I remember the hon. member's past speeches.


Howard Charles Green: I was just smiling at you in a friendly way.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would not displease my hon. friend for a kingdom, for, although we do not agree on everything, I have a soft spot in my heart for him, and I am quite sincere when I say that. He was kind to me once and I shall never forget it.


An hon. MEMBER:: How many soft spots have you?


Jean-François Pouliot: Not many. This is a serious matter. If I have prevented my hon. friend the member for Vancouver South from repeating what he has said in the past I have rendered a great service to him. I have prevented him from contradicting himself by approving this increase in the number of bureaucrats.
I will now leave it to the house, Mr. Speaker. I think I have spoken plainly enough to be well understood. If some hon. member declares himself in favour of this appointment, that is his business. I respect freedom of thought and of speech, but I tell him that he will be depriving himself of the right to complain in the future about bureaucracy in Ottawa.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker the first time I saw or heard my hon. friend who preceded me (Mr. Pouliot) was over at the Hull assizes some years ago, where he had a jury of young gentlemen like those from Quebec I see opposite me, weeping copious buckets of tears. This problem to which he has referred tonight goes back twenty years to the time when Mr. Harry Anderson was editor of the old Toronto Globe, a real reform newspaper. He took up the cudgels for penitentiary reform, aided by a pioneer in it, the Telegram. The city of Toronto had established a gaol farm for young offenders on Yonge street at Thornhill and another one for women at Concord near the city. They introduced many reforms which had been put into force in Britain twenty-five years ago, including the payment of fines, which later reform had resulted in closing half the prisons in Britain.
This resolution deals with two questions, the appointment of a commissioner and two deputy commissioners, and to provide for the

Penitentiary Act
payment of their salaries; and, second, that the Civil Service Superannuation Act shall apply to the commissioner and deputy commissioners. So far so good. But a military gentleman was appointed in April a year ago to make a report on the penitentiaries, and when we got his report we found that he made some of the recommendations which were made by Mr. Harry Anderson of the Globe twenty years ago and wdiich have yet not been adopted.
We should have some further system of inspections of these places other than by crown officers. These are all crown officers mentioned in the resolution. If grand juries are not to be allowed in, somebody should be allowed to go in respresenting the public. The hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Ross) has a large delegation going to Niagara Falls next week-end. There is no reason why there should not be, under the act at the present time, a board of visitors, as there is now already, consisting of members of parliament and others. If the minister wdll not allow grand juries to go in, he should arrange for some visits by committees when the house is sitting. I do hope that something will be done about this matter of real prison reform, because it has been made a political football for twenty years.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I rise to speak briefly in support of the remarks made by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol). I certainly could not agree with the opinions of the hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot). I want to compliment the government on marching triumphantly behind the leadership of Canadian public opinion and Canadian conscience in these matters. I am quite sure there is a great demand for improvement in our penal administration and I think this legislation represents a step in the right direction. I am of opinion that, under the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley), in the very near future we are going to see something done in this matter.
Before sitting down, I wish to say that, in my opinion, the whole success of our form of penal institutions, their administration and their improvement in the future will depend almost entirely on the type of personnel who are appointed to these high positions. I do hope that every consideration will be given to selecting men who are not of military mind, who do not have an entirely disciplinarian outlook, but who have a full and complete understanding of human nature and its treatment under these conditions.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.


Howard Charles Green: Before the resolution carries, will the minister explain to the committee just how far he is proposing to go in the bill? I notice that the resolution mentions only the appointment of a commissioner and two deputy commissioners. It may be that the intention is to make other improvements in our penitentiary sj^stem; and I hope there are to be improvements along the lines suggested in the Archambault report and also in the report of Major-General Gibson. Will the minister give us in some detail what his plan is for improving the penitentiary system?
Right Hon. J. L. ILS'LEY (Minister of Justice): I think it would be more appropriate to do that at a later stage. This is a very simple bill. It changes the plan which was laid down in the Penitentiary Act of 1939, an act which has not been proclaimed. The act of 1939 authorized the appointment of a penitentiaries commission consisting of three persons; and the government after giving careful consideration to the desirability of appointing a three-man commission, came to the conclusion that it was more desirable to appoint a one-man commission with two deputy commissioners. The appointment of a one-man commission and two deputy commissioners is the whole purpose of this bill. I think it is due the committee that I give some reasons why that change in plan was decided on.
The Penitentiary Act, 1939, was enacted as a result of the report of a royal commission appointed to investigate the penal system of Canada. Heretofore the administration of the penitentiaries has been the direct responsibility of a superintendent who has reported to the deputy minister of justice and has acted under his instructions, subject to the direction and approval of the minister. It is true that the superintendent was assisted in his duties by three inspectors, but in practice not only all matters of policy but all day-to-day administrative decisions in connection with penitentiaries were submitted to and dealt with by the superintendent personally.
The royal commission considered that the problems of penal administration were too large in scope and too serious in results to be thus concentrated in the hands of one man. They referred1 to the system of administration in force in Great Britain where there was a prison commission consisting of a chairman and two other commissioners, one administrative and one medical, reinforced by four assistant commissioners. They pointed out that under this system each member of the commission assumed responsibility for his own share of the work of the department and each
Penitentiary Act

of the assistant commissioners was entrusted with a particular phase of the prison problem and with the inspection of a particular block of prisons. The royal commission emphasized the advantages of a system which permitted greater delegation of administrative responsibility and division of the various duties involved in penal administration amongst a larger group of officials. They also recommended that for purposes of administration the prison commission should be responsible directly to the Minister of Justice in the same manner as the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, since it was felt that the deputy minister of justice as chief law officer of the crown should not be burdened with penitentiary administration.
The Penitentiary Act, 1939, accepted the general principles involved in these recommendations; that is, an augmented staff to deal with penitentiary administration and direct responsibility to the minister, and provided, in section 4, for the appointment of three commissioners to replace the. superintendent and, in section 8, for the appointment of three assistant commissioners to replace the former inspectors. It further provided, in section 5, that the commissioners should, under the minister, have direct control and management of all penitentiaries and over all matters connected therewith with power, subject to the approval of the minister, to make rules and regulations for their administration, maa*-agement and discipline.
The bill which it is now proposed to introduce does not alter the size of the organization which the royal commission considered desirable for the administration of the penitentiaries and which parliament approved in passing the 1939 act. Nor does it change the principle of direct responsibility to the minister for penitentiary administration. The only change it contemplates is that there shall be one person responsible to the minister for the administration of the penitentiaries, with whom he can deal directly rather than a commission of three men each with equal responsibilities. It will in no way prevent a suitable division of responsibility under the commissoner for the various phases of administration amongst the deputy and assistant commissioners, as contemplated by the royal commission. It should, in fact, make it easier for these officials to concentrate upon the particular phases of administration to which they will be allotted without the necessity of their becoming responsible for all matters of policy. It will also facilitate the appointment of those who have special qualifications for the branch of the work to be allotted to them.

It is to be anticipated that there will be the fullest consultation between the commissioner and his deputies and assistants, and that' their advice in their own spheres will receive full consideration when decisions affecting policy have to be made.
However valuable multiple bodies may be in consultative or advisory capacities, it is a sound principle of responsible government that, in administrative matters, there should be one responsible head charged with the duty of making decisions for his department and of submitting to superior authority recommendations for which he assumes responsibility. It is significant that in a recently published Manual of Suggested Standards for a Correctional System prepared by the American prison association in October, 1946, after lengthy consideration by the outstanding penologists and authorities on prison administration in the United States, the following statement appears:
In a decreasing number of states the correctional institutions are administered Im a board of three or more salaried, full-time members (known as board of administration, board of control, etc.), either with the chairman serving in the capacity of executive director or each member administering a prescribed part of the programme. Such a board seldom gives the correctional institutions as effective administration as a strong department of correction under a single qualified commissioner would. The best opinion is against this multiple-executive form of administration and strongly in favour of the single professionally qualified administrative head, whether with or without a policy-making board of part-time non-salaried laymen.
It is also significant to note that the federal bureau of prisons in the United States, which is responsible for the administration of all prisons under the jurisdiction of the federal government, has adopted this principle of a single director as its administrative head.
In paragraph 16 of his recent report General Gibson has outlined the proposed allotment of responsibility to the deputy commissioners and the assistant commissioners. With proper consultation and mutual confidence and understanding between the commissioner anid 'his assistants there is every reason to anticipate that the organization proposed will accomplish satisfactorily the purposes the royal commission had in view in recommending a larger body to administer the penitentiaries, and at the same time will adhere to the principle of a single responsible head that recent administrative practice strongly favours.
Perhaps at this point I should place on record parts of the report of General Gibson to -which I have referred:
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 Minister of

Penitentiary Act
Justice. It is evident that in making this recommendation the royal commission had m mind its further recommendation-
And I think this is important.
-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.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Did that include the
provincial prisons?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, which we do not propose to do.
As will be stated later, it is not yet considered practicable to give effect to this recommendation-
I do not know whether it will ever be practicable to give effect to the recommendation.


Howard Charles Green: From what page is the minister reading?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Part of the time I am reading from page 8, and part of the time I am interjecting my own comments.
As will be stated later, it is not yet 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.
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.
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 adequacy and results of present and proposed methods of correctional treatment.
The next paragraph, which I shall not read, deals with the assistant commissioners. The bill will concern itself with the appointment of the commissioner and two deputy commissioners; that is really what the bill is. We must proclaim the act of 1939 after we make the changes parliament considers appropriate, and the government is recommending to parliament that, instead of proceeding with this three-man commission, we substitute instead one commissioner and two deputy commissioners, for the reasons I have given here. In the late thirties much faith was reposed in three-man boards or five-man boards or larger
boards, and there is much to be said for that form of organization in dealing with certain matters. But in the legislation the principle of responsibility to the minister is preserved, and I think parliament would want it preserved. It is provided in the bill that the penitentiaries commission at all times must be subject to the direction and control of the minister, and it is our view that better results will be obtained if, instead of having a board under the minister, we have one commissioner under the minister. That is, we think, a better form of organization, provided that you get a good man; and I do not think I should hesitate about stating who the commissioner will be if this legislation goes through. The commissioner will be General Gibson, who up to this moment has been doing a special task of examining the whole problem. I should make it clear, too, that this recommendation did not emanate from him. This recommendation emanated from the government. It was not he who recommended that he be the sole commissioner; it was the government that asked him to be the sole commissioner, subject to the approval of parliament, and we anticipate that it will be possible to get highly qualified deputy commissioners, each of whose work will be clearly delimited and defined in the way I have mentioned, and that this organization will form the best basis for effecting certain changes and imporvements in the penal system of Canada.
So often I hear that the government should carry out the findings of the Archambault commisison. One of the recommendations of that commission was that in some way the dominion government should take charge of the penal system of Canada, which, _ unless indefensible duplication existed, would involve the taking over of a large number of provincial institutions. We have not the slightest indication that the provinces would be willing to have that done, and we have not any intention of trying to centralize authority and power in Ottawa in that way. It may be that there is much to be said for a complete integration of the penal system of Canada. But a division of responsibility is clearly contemplated under the British North America Act, and it is our intention to respect the provisions of that act.
I see that some hon. members have readi the report of General Gibson, a report which, in my opinion, is a practical one. The steps which were taken by General Gibson before he came to his decisions are set out in his report; and I think those who are interested in the improvement of the penal system in Canada have been much impressed with his report.

Penitentiary Act
I am not in a position at the present time to say that the government will do everything General Gibson recommends in his report; but certainly we are very much more likely to go to that length than we are to go to the full length recommended by the Archam-bault commission. I am not saying that the Arehambault commission report was not a valuable document and an important contribution to the cause of penal reform in Canada. But I do say that certain recommendations in it are, in my judgment, impracticable; and that the recommendations made by General Gilbson in his report are for the most part at least practicable and desirable.


John Ritchie MacNicol: After listening to the minister, all I can say is that I hope a great advance will be made. The minister did not say anything about the reclamation of prisoners. I have not read the report about which he has spoken, although I did read the Arehambault report.
However I like to find things out for myself. I have travelled extensively to do so, and for a long time, along with many others, I have asked myself how we can reclaim the prisoners who come under the oare of the federal government. I appreciate we cannot do very much for those who come under provincial care. I believe that, generally speaking, the provinces are acting in the matter; I know Ontario is. Mr. George Dunbar, the member from Ottawa in the local house at Toronto, is the minister in control of penal institutions. Last year Mr. Dunbar went to England to make a survey, and I believe that, in doing so, he covered about the same route I covered when I made my survey of British prisons, and the manner in which they deal with the reclamation of prisoners. In England and Scotland they use the Borstal system, and the institutions over there using that system are increasing in number because of the beneficial results obtained.
, Apparently, however, unless we can use it in connection with the young offenders who are sent to our penitentiaries for major crimes, we cannot carry out that system in the federal field. But I do not see why we cannot. I am one who believes that many serious crimes are committed without any intention on the part of the young men concerned to commit crime. Perhaps a young man may have some twist in his mentality; I believe a considerable percentage of young folk may not be 100 per cent mentally competent. I do not mean that they are crazy; but there is something wrong with them which prompts them to do something they ought not to do. Perhaps, instead of being incarcerated with hardtened criminals who-and I agree

with the hon. member for Temiscouata-* might be beyond redemption, these young men could be reclaimed.
Will the new board have authority to introduce reclamation methods in federal penitentiaries for first offenders? Surely they can go that far. Surely we can reclaim those young men, just as they do it in England, although, in England it is all under one government.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And they have an easier system under which to work. With our federal government and the nine provinces it becomes more difficult. But can we not introduce something along the lines of the Borstal reclamation programme for the benefit of first offenders in federal penitentiaries? Perhaps the minister has not had time to give the matter all the thought he would like to give it. I have given it thought for a long time, and have made a careful survey. I am one who believes that a goodly percentage of first offenders in federal penitentiaries could be reclaimed. Will the government's programme include t'he reclamation of first offenders?
Mr.ILSLEY: I have read a number of speeches which have been made in the house through the years about penal reform, and I remember in particular the substance of a sentence used by the hon. member for Spadina in one of his speeches, where he said that the three principles which ought to be observed are classification, segregation and after care. If hon. members will look at General Gibson's report they will see that he is fully aware of the importance of classification, segregation and after care, and that he has recommendations to make under each of those headings, although perhaps he does not use those exact terms. Some progress has already been made.
I do not know that I want this evening to go into a discussion of methods of dealing with prisoners, because the principle of the bill is a very simple one. It is a step which must be taken to set up the organization to deal with the problem. At a later stage I shall be prepared to discuss the Borstal system, and how far it is possible for the dominion government to do anything in the application of that system here in Canada. The whole problem is complicated by the division of responsibility between the federal and provincial governments, but probably it will not be impossible- to apply certain features of the Borstal system, even in connection with some federal institutions.
It must be borne in mind that the Borstal system is not a penitentiaries system at all.

Penitentiary Act


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is a reclamation system.


James Lorimer Ilsley: A Borstal institution is not a penitentiary.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is a reclamation of offenders.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Chairman, there are two or three matters I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. I am glad he is at the head of this department, because he has the habit of making some changes and securing some efficiency for the money expended.
Is a definite - policy to be adopted of training these officials? Before the minister took charge of this department, most of the officials just learned from experience. I found out that you cannot learn the police business in a day. We had a chief of police who had been at the head of our force in Toronto for thirty-five years. He retired, and a deputation came to me and wanted to put a businessman who had no training for the work into that position. I told them, "You cannot learn Eaton's or Simpson's business in a day; how are you going to learn to be chief of police in a day?" It is the same in this department. The civil service commission have been making the appointments, based mostly on party patronage. The result is that they have not had the class of official they should have at the head of this most important work.
I hope the minister will be able to make some of the necessary changes. Every large corporation or business has a new manager or a new president who could take hold the next day. I hope there will be some such new system adopted in this department. Since the Archambault report was tabled ten or twelve years ago, they have recently changed for the better one hundred of the regulations. I should like to see them go farther and confer with the provinces about what should be done in connection with the Borstal system. A return was tabled this session stating that this matter was waiting a conference with the provinces. Ontario and Toronto have been leaders in reform and they had two or three crime institutions in operation in 1910, long before the Nickle report of 1921, at North Yonge street cure farm for men, and for women a farm at Concord, taken over in the war by the province for a hospital. Mr. Dunbar, the provincial secretary of Ontario who represents an Ottawa seat, has opened a reformation school at Brampton, I believe, for youthful offenders.
Another matter I should like to see looked into is that of definite and indeterminate sentences. The late Chief Justice R. M.
Meredith took the view that a sentence of 365 days in a provincial institution plus an indefinite period was not legal. I hope the minister will look into this problem of indeterminate detention. It is not in the public interest.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: There seems to be more involved in this matter than the mere appointment of three officials; apparently it is linked up with a programme which is essential if these officials are to function. I should like to ask the minister, who is the person who has been directly responsible up to this time for administration in connection with these matters? Who has been directly responsible to the minister? Is the work of that person who is directly responsible to be superseded by these new appointments? Many of us have read General Gibson's report which is quite comprehensive and covers the whole field, but I think we should like to [DOT] know what express programme is to be handed to General Gibson and his two assistants to carry through. I do not think we should be asked to appoint a commissioner and two deputies when we do not know what parts of this report are to be formulated into a programme in order that we may have a definite penal system in the future.


James Lorimer Ilsley: At the present time there are a superintendent and inspector.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: Is the superintendent
vested with plenary powers under the minister to do many of the things set out here?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am not just sure how far the Penitentiary Act goes in giving the superintendent pow7er. I speak subject to correction, but there are certain vacancies in the organization. One of the inspectors has been acting as superintendent and another inspector has retired. Instead of there being a superintendent and three inspectors, there is an acting superintendent and one inspector. With the shrinkage of the organization it became necessary for someone else to take on additional duties, so that, for the last six months or so, General Gibson has been engaged to a considerable extent in administrative duties in connection with the penitentiaries.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: Will the programme go into effect with the appointment of the commissioners?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I would prefer to state at a later stage just how far the commissioner will go in carrying out the recommendations made by him in the report that is before the house. As I say, undoubtedly most of that report should be put into effect at the earliest possible moment. The carrying out of some of
26S8
Penitentiary Act

these recommendations may have to be deferred and it is possible that not all of them will be carried out, but these are matters that will have to be considered. I shall have to make a statement at a later date as soon as the decisions are arrived at.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: Would the minister consider the suggestion that in the meantime only the commissioner be appointed and that the government wait until the commissioner is fully seized of these matters before appointing the two deputies?	Then, when the
deputies are appointed some programme should be brought down.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think it is desirable that the commissioner be appointed as soon as possible and I would hope that the deputies would be appointed shortly afterward. I made the statement a while ago that the commissioner would be General Gibson. A minister should not make a statement like that; he should' say, which I am quite prepared to say, that the recommendation of the government-[DOT]


Howard Charles Green: We heard you the first time.


James Lorimer Ilsley: -to His Excellency the Governor General will be that General Gibson be appointed.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: Having regard to the report that we have before us, I think we are all pretty much in agreement with that appointment.


Mr. MATTHEWS (Kootenay East):: I am sorry that I was not in my seat when the discussion began tonight and have therefore missed many of the things said by the Minister of Justice. I am one of those who have read this report very carefully. I am impressed with its goodness. It is indeed a step in the right direction. However I was sorry to hear the minister say that the government is not prepared to adopt all the recommendations made in this report, because to me they are all alike, commendable. However, as the ihinister said, it is the first step. We who are interested in this subject will watch the development of these commissioners' work very carefully indeed.
In recent years I have been one of those who have been very much impressed with the Borstal system as it is being worked out today in the old country, and I should like to see that system adopted in Canada on a federal scale.
There is one item on page 11 of the report which I should like to read:
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 [Mr. Ilsley.l
type to which could be transferred the 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.
And so on. So far as Canada is concerned, the only place where the Borstal system has been tried out was in British Columbia a few years ago. I am happy to say that that system is again to be reintroduced in that province. I hope that its usefulness will be of such a nature that we shall watch it carefully' in the House of Commons, and that we shall be prepared to adopt it more generally across the dominion because, if there is one phase of our penitentiary system which is weak today, it is that of sending young offenders of the reformable type into our federal penitentiaries where they meet from day to day the most hardened criminals that we have in the country.
It is noted from time to time in this and other reports that some of these young men come out of our federal penitentiaries infinitely worse than when they went in, just because of their association with hardened criminals. The mistake, to my mind, is made in the first place by putting these young reformable-type prisoners into these institutions.
I noticed that the minister said a Borstal institution is not a penitentiary. I admit the truth of that statement and I hope they will never be looked upon as penitentiaries. I remember visiting a Borstal institution in Lincolnshire, England, last fall. There it is spoken of as an institution. The word "prison" is never used. I admit that it is what is called an open Borstal. There are both closed and open Borstals; but there the word "prison" is not used. In fact it is a punishable offence if any boy mentions the word "prison". There are no locks and no bars. The boys are treated with every degree of trust and confidence. They are being trained day to day to become the type of citizen they ought to be.
I should like to see that system developed more and more in our Canadian prison institutions.
There are many other matters in connection with this report that one might speak on; but, as I said a few moments ago, I have not prepared any speech in this regard. I have read the report. I am impressed with it and I believe it is indeed a forward step. I hope that, if not all, as many as possible of these recommendations may be carried out.


Mr. KNIGHT:: I wish to say a word on one phase of what the minister has said. I am particularly glad that definite and skilled instruction is to be given to the people who are to be in charge of the penitentiaries, and

Penitentiary Act
who are responsible for their administration. That has been one of the greatest drawbacks of the system which we have had up to now. and it is something about which the country can complain.
I was interested in the fact that one of the deputy commissioners is to be the instructor, as it were, of the inspector's staff. He is a man who assumes a tremendous responsibility and the man who, if he is left alone and is not interfered with, will imprint his ideas in regard to care in penitentiaries upon the whole penitentiary system. In my opinion, his selection is a matter of tremendous importance. I hope we have decided that education is perhaps the most important work that can be carried on in connection with prisoners. Surely at this time these institutions should be considered not merely as punitive institutions but almost wholly as reformatory.
Speaking of commissions and of their reports, I should like to put on the record my admiration of the report of the commission which studied the prisons and penitentiaries of Saskatchewan, a commission headed by Doctor S. R. Laycock. That report more than any other which I have read attacks the problem of crime from the right angle, that is to say, reformative, to which I have already referred.


Mr. GAUTHIER (Portneuf):: May I say a word in support of what the hon. member said about the Borstal system. It is true that it is only an institution; it is not a penitentiary. But, of course, some accidents happen once in a while in Borstal institutions. The other day I saw a report in a paper that a young detainee was guilty of an assault on one of the guards; but it was just an accident. I do not say that to speak against the Borstal system, because I favour it.
A week ago, I believe, in Quebec the legislature adopted a law to provide subsidies for the study of juvenile delinquency in that province. I may say, in passing, that I do not approve the centralization of all the penal systems in Canada. If there has to be centralization, I trust it will be done only after a long and careful study and parleying with the different provinces.
The hon. member said that some of our young detainees were coming out of penitentiaries worse than they were when they went in. That is true. I have a special case under consideration, a young man who is not an idiot or insane, but who has been [DOT] sentenced for three years for robbery of some kind. I know he was not responsible, because he had taken a glass of wine with a companion he had just met on the road. I am positive that it may happen that when he
comes out he will be worse than when he went in. He is easily influenced. One thing I noticed in the Gibson report is that Colonel Gibson said there is only one psychiatrist in one penitentiary in Canada, Kingston. There was none in any other penitentiary. That is due to the lack of administration and comprehension of the status mentis of all prisoners, especially criminals. In the Toronto Star of April 24, 1947, I also noticed an article by Wessely Hicks.	In this article
he mentions that Mr. Edmison, president of the Canadian penal institution, a lawyer with a lifelong interest in penology, recently visited penitentiaries across Canada. I should like to quote the following from that article:
I visited Stony Mountain, Prince Albert and New Westminster penitentiaries in the west. I visited Dorchester prison in New Brunswick, and the penitentiary in Kingston. There was one psychiatrist at Kingston, Doctor C. M. Crawford, and he is the only psychiatrist attached to any prison in Canada.
Every prison should have at least one psychiatrist to deal with abnormal offenders such as sex perverts.
And so forth.
I have read that just to come to the question I wish to ask of the minister. Is it the intention of the government to appoint a medical man as one of the two deputy commissioners on the new commission that is proposed? I think that is essential.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The nature of the duties
to be discharged by one of the deputy commissioners would, it is expected, call for some knowledge of medicine or psychiatry. I cannot say anything about the intentions of the government beyond this, that we shall be disposed to accept the recommendation of General Gibson as to the division of responsibility between the two deputy commissioners. I placed those duties on record tonight. The language is very carefully framed. I will read it again:
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 tvell as the development of research and statistics to assess the adequacy and results of present and proposed methods of correctional treatment.
If those are to be his duties the government will seek a man qualified to discharge them, which, I assume, would call for some knowledge of medicine or psychiatry.


Howard Charles Green: I take it from the reluctance of the minister to give any details of his plans for improving the penal system in Canada that he has still somewhat of an open mind.
Penitentiary Act


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: I realize that he will give the most careful consideration both to the Arch-ambault report and to the report of General Gibson, but I am a little worried for fear that General Gibson will not be supported as he should be. There are in his report certain suggestions having to do, for example, with the treatment of young offenders between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one. I can assure the minister that in British Columbia at any rate, the utmost interest is being taken in the treatment of the young offenders. Our government there is planning to establish a Borstal home, and I know I have had representations from many responsible citizens in Vancouver, and no doubt there have been similar representations from other parts of the province, all urging action on this question of penal reform. That one question of what is to be done with the young offenders is, I think, the key question worrying most of the people who are making these representations. General Gibson deals with that problem and on page 16 of his report he makes this recommendation. After discussing the Borstal system and the treatment of young offenders and pointing out that the provinces have a certain jurisdiction over the young offenders, the general says:
These developments emphasize the necessity for a conference of the responsible authorities to determine the respective responsibilities of dominion and provinces in dealing with this problem and to define and coordinate the action to be taken by each to avoid overlapping and duplication of facilities.
I should like the minister to tell the committee whether or not he is prepared to call a conference of that type at an early day. It does seem to me that such a conference is important in working out proper plans for improving the methods of dealing with these young offenders.
Another recommendation made by General Gibson has to do with the prisoners' aid societies. His remarks will be found at the bottom of page 16:
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.
[Mr. Green. 1
I should like the minister to tell us whether or not he agrees with that suggestion and whether the government intends to take action that will enable support of that kind to be given to these voluntary associations.
One other question has to do with the training of personnel of the penitentiary staffs. General Gibson emphasizes in different parts of his report the great need for giving modern training to the staffs of the penitentiaries, and at page 9 of his report he says that in the middle and higher range of salaries the penitentiary employees are not getting proper pay at the present time and he recommends that there should be a revision upwards. My third question of the minister would be whether or not the government is willing to make the necessary changes by way of giving these officials proper salaries and by enabling General Gibson to set up a proper training school for his staff. If there is no willingness to support the general on these different points I am afraid he has not very much chance of making a success of his new position. I should like to have the minister's answer to these three questions.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall have to give my answer at a later day. On the question of salaries, my impression is that a great many adjustments upwards have already been made.


Howard Charles Green: The minister will find that recommendation on page 9 of the report.


James Lorimer Ilsley: What is the date of the report? It was in February, was it not?


Howard Charles Green: February 5, 1947.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. There will be no hesitation on the part of the government to pay the men what they ought to receive. The trouble about that is that there is never any agreement about what people should receive. It is the whole problem of pay of the civil service in all its branches. Thousands and thousands of adjustments are being made all the time, and I am not aware that at the moment this particular class of officials of the government is being discriminated against.


Howard Charles Green: If I may interrupt the minister, General Gibson does not say that there is discrimination, but he does say that if he is to have the proper type of personnel to do the work he is of opinion that the salaries will have to be increased.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think they are being increased. I understand that process is going on.

Canada Evidence Act
About the conference with the provinces, I shall have to make some statement later about that. I am not, at the moment, prepared to say that a conference will be called or when it will be called. I would assume that probably there would be a conference with the provinces.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I understood the minister to say earlier that he had reason to believe that the provinces would not be willing to give over their jurisdiction under the British North America Act.


James Lorimer Ilsley: We have no reason to think they would; and I assume, from the general tone of a great many speeches that are made by members of provincial governments, that they would not.


Howard Charles Green: The minister is clear that General Gibson is not advocating that the dominion should take over all responsibility?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh, no.


Howard Charles Green: He merely says that there should be a conference to define the respective fields and to work out a method of cooperation, which I think is quite proper and quite within the terms of the British North America Act.


James Lorimer Ilsley: What was the third, question, again?


Howard Charles Green: It had reference to prisoners' aid societies.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, grants to prisoners' aid societies. I cannot make any statement about that now. That is a matter for the treasury board, the Minister of Finance and the government generally. The matter is not yet at such a stage that a programme of financial aid to these prisoners' aid societies could be instituted. I have discussed that recommendation, but that is the fact; it is not yet at such a stage that a programme of financial aid could be instituted.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I wish to ask a question, in view of what the hon. member for Portneuf said. Is his information correct that there is only one penitentiary in Canada which enjoys the services of a trained psychiatrist?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.
Resolution reported, read the: second time and concurred in. Mr. Ilsley thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 177, to amend the Penitentiary Act, 1939.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first and second times.



CANADA EVIDENCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 175, to amend the Canada Evidence Act.
Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain this bill?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is a very simple one. It just extends to the Bank of Canada and the industrial development bank certain provisions which now apply to other banks. Section 29 of the Canada Evidence Act provides for the proof of entries in books and records kept in a bank. Subsection 5 is being amended so as to include the industrial development bank established by chapter 44 of the statutes of 1944-45, and also the Bank of Canada.
There are just two sections in the bill. I have dealt with the first one. The second deals with the definition of "corporation". Section 29A of the Canada Evidence Act is being amended to correspond to the definition of "bank" in subsection 5 of section 29. I shall have to get the Canada Evidence Act.
The first section of the bill before the house reads as follows:
Paragraph (a) of subsection five of section twenty-nine of the Canada Evidence Act, chapter fifty-nine of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(a) 'bank' means the Bank of Canada, the Industrial Development Bank and any bank to which the Bank Act applies, or to which the Quebec Savings Banks Act applies, and includes any branch, agency or office of any such bank;"
Paragraph (a) of subsection 5 of section 29 of the Canada Evidence Act is the same, with the omission of the underlined words; that is, with the omission of the words "the Bank of Canada" and "the industrial development bank". The significance of the change is that section 29 will now apply to the industrial development bank and the Bank of Canada; and when it does, the following provisions will apply to those banks:
Subject to the provisions of this section a copy of any entry in any book or record kept in any bank shall in all legal proceedings be received as prima facie evidence of such entry and of the matters, transactions and accounts therein recorded.
2. A copy of an entry^ in such book or record shall not be received in evidence under this section unless it be first proved that the book or record was, at the time of the making of the entry, one of the ordinary books or records of the bank and that the entry was made in the usual and ordinary course of business, and that the book or record is in the custody or control of the bank and that such copy is a true copy
Canada Evidence Act

thereof; and such proof may he given by the manager or accountant of the bank and may be given orally or by affidavit sworn before any commissioner or other person authorized to take affidavits.
Then follow certain other provisions. The marginal notes relating to these other provisions are as follows: cheques, proof of "no account"; not necessary to prove official character; compulsion of production or appearance; order to inspect and copy; notice; .computation of time. Those are the provisions that apply to legal proceedings affecting banks, and hereafter those provisions will apply to the Bank of Canada and the industrial development bank.


Howard Charles Green: Merely extending those provisions to the Bank of Canada and the industrial development bank?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. That is section 1. Then section 29A of the Canada Evidence Act is the section that permits the admission in evidence of a print, whether enlarged or not, from any photographic film of an entry in any book or record kept by any government or corporation and destroyed, lost or delivered to a customer after such film was taken, and of any bill of exchange, promissory note, cheque, receipt, instrument or document held by any government or corporation and destroyed, lost or delivered to a customer after such film was taken, and of any record, document, plan, book or paper belonging to or deposited with any government or corporation. I have not read the whole section, but that is the essence of it. It is an authorization for the admission in evidence of photographic or photostatic copies.


Howard Charles Green: The amendment seems fair enough.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. The reason we do not have to say anything about the Bank of Canada in this section is that the Bank of Canada is already mentioned, so that it is only necessary to add the industrial development bank.


Mr. MENARY:: I should like to ask the minister if banks are responsible for bonds, notes and papers placed in safety deposit boxes for safe keeping. If the bank should be broken into or the boxes broken into and bonds stolen, is the bank responsible?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Would the hon. gentleman wait until we are in committee?


Lewis Menary: I am sorry.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.

On section 1-"bank."
Lewis Menary: If a customer has bonds
or notes or papers in a safety deposit box and the bank is broken into and the contents of those boxes removed, who would be responsible? Is the bank responsible, or would the customer be responsible? Could the minister answer that question?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am afraid it would be improper for me to give legal advice even if I knew what advice to give.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. ILSLEY moved the third reading of the bill.
Mr. HANSELL:: I am not rising to speak on the bill itself but to protest against third reading being given at this time.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Next sitting, then.


Ernest George Hansell: This afternoon a bill was reported from committee and read the third time and passed, and I do not think that is a good practice to follow. Usually we have some little time between second and third readings, and I think this motion should come' up at the next sitting of the house.


James Lorimer Ilsley: All right.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Next sitting.




[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 27, to amend the Canada Evidence Act.
Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain this bill?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The purpose of the bill is to provide for the proof of treaties to which Canada is a party by the production of a copy of the Canada Gazette or a volume of the acts of the parliament of Canada purporting to contain a copy of the treaty or by production of a copy purporting to be printed by the king's printer for Canada. The only section in the Canada Evidence Act under which a Canadian treaty can be proven is section 24, which requires production of a copy certified under the hand of the proper officer or person in whose custody it is. Section 20 provides for proof of imperial treaties by production of

Canada Evidence Act
a copy of the Canada Gazette or a volume of the acts of the parliament of Canada purporting to contain a copy or by production of a copy thereof purporting to be printed by the king's printer for Canada. The amendment proposed will, for the purposes of the Canada Evidence Act, place Canadian treaties in the same position as imperial treaties.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: What would be the practical application of this amendment? Would it have something to do with extradition, or something of that kind? Would it apply where a treaty for the extradition of prisoners would have to be read into the record?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am afraid I cannot give an instance. This wTas requested by the Department of External Affairs. It seemed reasonable, and we went ahead with it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1 - Proclamations, etc., of governor general.
Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: I notice the Secretary of State for External Affairs is in his place. Could he give us the practical application of the amendment?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Certain treaties are implemented by legislation, which place obligations upon citizens of Canada. There may be occasions when the existence of such a treaty would have to be proved. It might be in civil proceedings, or even in proceedings of a criminal nature.
Take, for instance, the treaty with respect to migratory birds. There may be a violation of the provisions of that treaty, sanctioned by penalties enacted by Canadian laws. And it might be necessary to establish before the courts the existence of the treaty. It constitutes a fact that may have to be established in the course of judicial proceedings. And, just as in the case of imperial treaties, it is felt that the method of proof should be the same as that established by the Canada Evidence Act for other documents emanating from public authorities.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: Having regard to section 21 (a) of the proposed bill, we find that it says:
By the production of a copy of the Canada Gazette, or a volume of the acts of the parliament of Canada purporting to contain a copy of such treaty, proclamation, order, regulation, or appointment or a notice thereof;
(bl By the production of a copy of such treaty, proclamation, order, regulation or appointment, purporting to he printed by the king's printer for Canada.
It has always been my impression that there was a good deal of formality necessary in respect of the proving of matters of much less importance than the proving of a treaty. It seems to me that an order simply printed in ordinary form by the king's printer would hardly bear the formality necessary to protect us in respect of a serious matter such as this.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The evidence of statutes, the evidence of orders in council, the evidence of any public act done by the proper public authority may be made by the production of a copy of the statute printed by the king's printer, or, if it is an order in council, by the production of a copy of the official Gazette where it appears, or in other cases it may be that the proof can be made by the war orders and regulations printed by the king's printer.
The fact that a document emanates from the office of the king's printer is usually regarded as sufficient to give it authenticity. In my own province this provision would not be required. In our civil courts under the civil code-I think it is article 1229-there is a rule providing for the manner in which these formal documents can be proved.
We now have treaties entered into between Canada and other nations; and all that is proposed in this bill is that the provision which existed heretofore for proving the kind of treaties by which Canada had been bound- that is to say, treaties made by the imperial government, and purporting to extend to all parts of the empire-be applied to the treaties which are made by our own Canadian authorities under the constitutional powers now enjoyed by Canada. It is not a new form of proof that is being introduced. It is merely the extension of a form of proof that has been of long usage to a new document which did not exist at the time the rule was formerly stated.


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


[Stage Direction]
Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 26, respecting the appointment of auditors for national railways.
Howard Charles Green: Would the minister explain the bill?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: This is the usual bill which comes before parliament each year and
Petitions

calls for the appointment of auditors for the Canadian National Railways. This year the appointment is sought for the firm of George A. Touche and Company of the cities of Toronto and Montreal.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Friday, May 2, 1947