Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Acting Prime Minister) :: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to lay on the table an order in council which establishes the Canadian information service. This service is being set up to provide for the distribution of information about Canada to the peoples of other countries.
Canadian Information Service

The need for such a service has been generally recognized. Canada has a vital interest in international peace and prosperity, and an important part to play in the attainment of these objectives. It is essential, therefore, that our people and country be known and understood abroad.
Those with whom we trade must know our country and its possibilities; those with whom we are associated for the maintenance of world security must know with whom they are cooperating, and what may be expected of our cooperation. In short, both trade and diplomacy, to be carried out successfully, need a background of understanding based on factual information objectively presented.
During the war years Canada's diplomatic representation abroad has had to be increased to keep pace with our increased obligations. In 1939 we maintained only four missions; to-day we have high commissioners in all the capitals of the commonwealth, and ambassadors and ministers in many other countries. At the same time the network of trade commissioners is being increased with a view to giving the utmost help to Canadian trade, which means, in the last analysis, help to every Canadian. All these representatives need to be kept thoroughly informed about what is going on at home.
During the last three years, pioneer work in the way of supplying information abroad has been done through the wartime information board, in conjunction with embassies, legations and trade commissioners. It will be the first duty of the new service to develop adequate reference and information services for all these Canadian representatives abroad. For this reason it was considered advisable to retain an interdepartmental, rather than a purely departmental, service.
The service is to be directed by a committee on which departments and agencies primarily interested in external peace-time information are represented. This committee will be under the chairmanship of A. D. P. Heeney, deputy head of the Privy Council office. It will also include Norman Robertson, Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs; M. W. Mackenzie, Deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce; Doctor Augustin Frigon, general manager of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; the government film commissioner, and the director of the Canadian information service.
Geoffrey C. Andrew, who has been secretary of the wartime information board for more than two years, and more recently has been acting as general manager, has been appointed director of the new service.

I should like to pay a word of tribute to the work which the wartime information board, and before it the director of public information, performed during the war years. The establishment of an information agency was a relatively new venture for Canada. It was a necessary task, and a difficult one, and much useful work has been done. Since V-J day the board has been steadily cutting down its services within Canada. A few days ago the last general manager of the wartime information board, Mr. A. D. Dunton, returned to his peace-time employment as editor of the Montreal Standard. I think it proper to say that he takes with him the thanks and admiration of all Canadians who can recognize a good and difficult job well done.



SEED GRAIN


James Lorimer Ilsley: I desire to announce to the house that a basis of settlement has been agreed upon with the province of Saskatchewan in reference to the seed grain dispute, so-called, which has been going on between that province and the dominion government. Under this settlement the balance owing the dominion by the province of Saskatchewan in respect of the 193S seed grain loan will be paid by the province as follows:
$6,626,664.68 to be paid monthly as collected from municipalities and to be paid in full as an obligation of the province by July 31, 1948.
$7,570,123.72 to be paid by the province over a period of eleven years.
Pursuant to this settlement the province will undertake to collect in the immediate future the amount owing by the farmer debtors under the compromise which the province made with them last year. As such moneys are collected from the farmers they will be paid by the province to the dominion. The balance of the total outstanding indebtedness will be paid by the province to the dominion, as I have said, over a period of eleven years and will be secured by noninterest bearing treasury bills of the province.
I may add that a statement substantially to this effect was given to the press last night, but it was reported as indicating that the dominion had undertaken to forgo the collection of some $2,272,000 of the principal. That is not correct. The $2,272,000 has been collected from the province already by way of deductions from payments to the province-

under the tax agreements, leaving $14,196,788 still due, the settlement of which has been arranged in the manner 1 have indicated.
The matter, I think, has been settled on a basis satisfactory to both the dominion and the province, and my hope is that future relations between the dominion and the province in regard to this matter will be harmonious and cooperative, and that there will be no further dispute or misunderstanding arising out of the seed grain loans.


Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: May I ask if it is a proper inference to take from this statement, that as a result of this adjustment there will be no loss to the dominion treasury, but that the adjustment is more in the way of postponing the payments due the dominion?


James Lorimer Ilsley: And the forgoing of interest accruing from December 11, 1944, on. The principal and interest accruing to December 11, 1944, are all to be paid in the manner I have indicated.


John Bracken: Then the government has lost interest for only one month, or less?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, interest spread over various periods. The instalments are spread over a term of eleven years. A fairly large amount is concentrated in the early part of that period, but to the extent that those payments were not made on demand the dominion government is forgoing the interest.


John Bracken: Was that just an arbitrary adjustment, or was some principle involved?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh, I may say there were negotiations.


Mr. LOCKHART:: What was the total amount forgone by the dominion government?


James Lorimer Ilsley: None in the way of principal.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: But in the way of interest?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: You should know.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is no way of computing it with accuracy, because of the fact that the collections from the farmers are to be paid at the end of each month, as collected. If they are all collected at once, then there will be a smaller amount forgone in the way of interest than if they are not collected so quickly.


Mr. FRASER:: May I ask the minister-
War Charities Act __________


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: -a question in connection
with the information board?


Mr. SPEAKER:: The statement of the
minister is not debatable.


Mr. FLEMING:: I should like to ask the acting Prime Minister a question in regard to his first announcement.


James Horace King: I just said the statement made by the minister is not debatable.
Mr. F'LEMING:	This is a question in
regard to his first announcement.


James Horace King: It is not debatable.



WAR CHARITIES ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. J. McCANN (Minister of National War Services) moved for leave to introduce bill No. 13, to amend the War Charities Act, 1939.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. McCANN:: The purpose of this amendment is to enlarge the War Charities Act to include war memorials as projects acceptable for registration. As it is at present constituted, the act governs all appeals, charitable or otherwise, arising out of or connected with the war. It is felt that this interpretation of a war charity fund is not sufficient to bring all types of appeals for war memorials within the provisions of the act. This amendment clarifies the meaning of a war charity fund and ensures that war memorial appeals will require authorization under the act.


Mr. CHURCH:: Is the amount under the
act reduced or increased as a result of the amendment? It was $12,000,000 last year.


James Joseph McCann: That information will be
given when the bill is in committee.


Thomas Langton Church: It should be cut in two;
the war is over.



CANADIAN ARMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Bracken: During a statement by the
Minister of National Defence on September 24 in connection with the dismissal of the editor of the Canadian overseas army newspaper Maple Leaf, he promised to have the editorials in question placed on Hansard as
Far-Eastern Commission

soon as possible. Will the minister be good enough to inform the house if he has received the documents in question, and, if so, when we may expect that they will be tabled, so that they may appear in Hansard?


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of National Defence):: I now have copies of the Maple Leaf containing the two editorials, and perhaps I might lay them on the table of the house.
. FAR-EASTERN COMMISSION
CARRYING OUT OP TERMS OF JAPANESE SURRENDER *-CANADIAN PARTICIPATION
On the orders of the day:


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: I should like to ask this question of the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has Canada been officially invited to join the new far-eastern commission which will direct the carrying out of the Japanese surrender terms? If so, has Canada accepted? If we have accepted, who will represent this nation on the commission, and where and when will the initial meeting of the commission be held?
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs): My information is that discussions looking to the establishment of a far-eastern commission have been under way in London for some time, but have not yet reached the stage where official invitations have been issued.


Gordon Graydon: There was some intimation in the press concerning Canada's joining that commission; that is what prompted my asking the question.



NEWSPRINT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I
should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. News dispatches seem to indicate that the British government has decided to suspend importations of newsprint from Canada. Has the Canadian government received any intimation officially or unofficially from the British government on this point? If so, what steps are being taken by the government to insure the continuance of this trade?


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I am grateful to the hon. member for having given me notice of the question. Although the government has received no official notification of this situation, we in the Department of Trade and Commerce have been notified of it unofficially

and indirectly. We are now discussing the matter with the United Kingdom government. My department is fully aware of the importance of this matter, and is anxiously looking, into the situation.
May I say we are not so deeply concerned with the immediate situation as with the longterm market considerations. As is well known generally, there is at the present time a much greater market for newsprint than we can supply. However, as I have said, we are going into this matter carefully with the United Kingdom government in the long-term interest.



MARSHAL ZHUKOV


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Cariboo):: I
should like to ask a question of the Acting Prime Minister. It is my understanding from press reports that Marshal Gregory Zhukov is visiting America, and that he will be officially received in New York on Thursday. Is it the intention of the Canadian government to invite this distinguished warrior to visit Canada?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That question was asked a few days ago. My reply at that time was that the government had no official information respecting Marshal Zhukov's visit. I am sorry that I have not been following the newspapers, and therefore I am not aware of what the hon. member has just said to the house. No plans have been made for extending any invitation to visit Canada, but I shall discuss the matter with my colleagues.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. CHARLTON (Brant):: I should like to direct the attention of the Minister of Labour to a matter of vital and immediate concern to the farmers of Canada. In view of the already congested conditions in packing plants across Canada, is the government considering any action to avert a possible labour dispute at present threatening this industry?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I am informed that the situation is well known to the provincial authorities under whose jurisdiction this matter would come. I assume that both employers and employees will avail themselves of the machinery established for dealing with matters of the kind.

International Labour Conference



NANAIMO MINE WORKERS-MEAT RATIONING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. PEARKES (Nanaimo):: Has the attention of the Minister of Labour been directed to a strike of the united mine workers *t Nanaimo in demand for double meat rations? Will the government reconsider the question of allowing men who work in strenuous labour projects such extra rations?


Humphrey Mitchell: I want to thank my hon. friend for giving me notice of the question. I am aware of the strike at Nanaimo, and also of the strikes in Alberta and at the Crowsnest Pass. I believe that 400 are involved at Nanaimo, out of a total of about 9,000. Their demand appears to be for a double supply of meat under the rationing system. I would also like to tell the hon. member that the attitude of the men is in contradiction of the advice given them by the leaders of district 18 of the United Mine Workers of America.
The Department of Labour already has a man at Calgary, which is the headquarters for that district. We hope the good sense of the men will make them realize that the strike is ill advised, and that as a result they will return to work at the earliest possible opportunity.



STRIKE AT FORD MOTOR PLANT, WINDSOR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. FRED ROSE (Cartier):: In view of
the fact that the officials of the Ford Motor Company have refused to meet with members of the union, will the Minister of Labour tell the house what steps are contemplated to help bring this strike to an early conclusion?


Humphrey Mitchell: If the hon. member would
direct his question to the people who are taking part in the dispute, and ask them what they are doing to bring this strike to a successful conclusion, it would be better. The Ford Motor company, rightly or wrongly-I think rightly-have raised objections to the pickets refusing to permit the management and clerical help to enter the plant. As a matter of fact the plant appears to be in a state of seige. I would ask my hon. friend, who comes from the good city of Montreal, whether he would have any objection if someone set up a picket around his house-remembering always that a Canadian's home is his castle.
As soon as the parties to the dispute come to an agreement I shall be very glad to sit down with the minister of labour of Ontario to make an attempt to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion.



INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour arising out of a statement he made on Friday afternoon, when he set out the personnel who would attend the international labour conference at Paris on October 15. In view of the fact that on practically every other delegation there is a woman representative, and having regard to the fact that at this conference social and employment problems will be to the fore, was consideration given to the appointment of a woman as a representative from Canada, and if so, why was a woman not appointed?


James Horace King: I do not see any urgency in the hon. member's question. It should be put on the order paper.


John George Diefenbaker: I bow to Your
Honour's ruling; this, however is a matter which concerns women's organizations across the country, and one which can be decided only at this time, because the conference meets on October 15.


James Horace King: The hon. member's question may be one of great importance, but that does not mean that there is any urgency.



FARM IMPLEMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance arising from an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail of September 29, stating that farm implements are no longer rationed. Is it not necessary to procure a permit in order to purchase tractors or other farm machinery?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That question should be placed on the order paper. I had no notice of it.
War and Demobilization



MEAT RATIONING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. FERGUSON (Simcoe North):: I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether meat rationing is in effect at Graven-hurst sanatorium at the present time.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Meat rationing is in effect everywhere.


James Horace King: May I say to the hon. gentleman that I do not see any urgency in his question.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: It may be a case of life and death.



WAR AND DEMOBILIZATION

[Stage Direction]
PROVISION FOR APPROPRIATION OF §1,365,000,000 FOR WAR PURPOSES, DEMOBILIZATION, PROMOTION OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY, ETC.
The house resumed from Friday, September 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Ilsley that the house go into committee to consider a resolution to grant to His Majesty certain sums of money for the carrying out of measures deemed necessary or advisable in consequence of the war.
Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak on this resolution, although. I did have it in mind that I might ask a few questions when the house had resolved itself into committee of the whole. However, the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) before leaving for other parts of the world, and the statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) which followed in respect to this resolution, along with the subsequent debate, has led me to desire to say just a word.
I think we should recognize that this resolution is important. It asks for permission to call upon the Canadian people for the tidy sum of 81,365,000.000. There was a day when a few million dollars used to stagger us, but now we have reached the stage of astronomical figures; we talk in terms of billions, and it does not seem to bother us. The wide variety of subjects which this resolution covers means that this money can be raised and spent for almost anything the government may desire to spend it on. It may involve even diplomatic relations; it may involve matters of international trade and commerce, the setting up of diplomatic staffs in other parts of the world, and so forth.
I recognize that Canada does not live in a world by itself. Throughout the past few years Canada has gradually come to be

recognized as one of the leading nations of the world, at least one of the leading small nations. I am not going to say that some credit is not due to the present Prime Minister in that respect, but I am afraid that when it comes to Canada's position in the world, particularly in the future world, sometimes the subject is talked of with some gloss and rather glibly, and terms are used that have not a great deal of reality. For instance, we hear from many sources, not the least being the lips of the Prime Minister, from time to time that we must cooperate in order to bring about a world community of nations. The words "cooperate", "cooperation" and "good will" are very agreeable terms to use. Perhaps I shall deal with them a little later.
There is another word that is used quite often in a glib fashion, and that is "aggression". When most people talk of aggression they always fancy that it is some other nation that is responsible for the aggression, just as though Germany and Italy and Japan, who just happened to be our enemies in war, are the only aggressors in the world. We must be realistic in the use of these terms.
Another word used quite often is "nationalism". Every man believes in his own country, but when he attempts to put his own country in order, or declares publicly that he believes his first duty is to his own country, he is immediately branded as an isolationist or an ultra-nationalist. Then the old propaganda machine gets going and the mighty and powerful propagandists lash out with their lying tongues against him. Social Creditors have been roasted for their stand, but what they really stand for is readiness to cooperate with the world, but at the same time giving to Canada what rightfully belongs to her.
The Prime Minister was in Edmonton not so many months ago. It happened to be during a political campaign, and I know that what is said during a political campaign always must be taken with a grain of salt. But it was the Prime Minister of Canada who was speaking. As he was in Edmonton, the capital city of Alberta, he could not leave alone the Social Crediters who have occupied seats in this house for almost the last ten years. His speech was recorded by the Canadian Press. By the way, before he attacked Alberta he took a nice little tap at a gentleman by the name of John Bracken. He said:
I have not been devoting my time as organizer of a political party.
Of course we know what he meant. What had he been doing?
I wiped out politics when this war began.
That is quite a statement.

War and Demobilization


An hon. MEMBER:: A rich one.


Ernest George Hansell: 
Mr. BLACKMORE:: A complete lie!


Ernest George Hansell: Yes; nothing was further from the truth than that statement is.
Let me deal for a moment with this charge that we are ultra-nationalists, that the Social Credit party seem "determined to uphold what they describe as national sovereignty in its most extreme form."
Let me ask, Mr. Speaker, what sovereignty is? Sovereignty simply means the freedom of the individual. It means the freedom of the individual to act as an individual soul in his own right and in his own sphere, free from any big bosses at the top. Sovereignty means that a municipality should be able to act freely within its own sphere and that a province should be able to act according to its own will within its own sphere. Sovereignty means that Canada as a nation should be absolutely free to act as its will chooses within its own sphere. That is what we as Social Crediters have been saying. That is what we believe national sovereignty to mean, and I ask, would any man stand up in this house and say that there is anything wrong with that? You may call me an isolationist, a nationalist, if you like; but personally I am proud to be a Canadian. Personally I think that the duty of members of parliament is to tell the people of this country that our first duty is towards them as Canadians-and if that is being a nationalist, then call us nationalists and we shall be proud of it.
The Prime Minister said that we consistently ignored the vital necessity of external trade to the prosperity and welfare of Canada, and particularly of Alberta. The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that over the years we have disagreed with the Prime Minister's particular policy of seeking world markets as the only solution of
our internal problems. That is where we have differed with the Prime Minister. I do not like to bring in the hungry thirties, because the term and the references have been worn almost threadbare. But where was the Prime Minister and his government in those days when Canada was richly favoured with a vast abundance of good things, when we had almost everything our hearts could desire, when goods were piled upon our shelves and in our warehouses and in our stores, and yet the people were virtually beggars? What was the aim of the Prime Minister's foreign policy then? He looked around for foreign, markets. He said to the world, in effect: Come along, you nations, we have many good things to sell to you here; will you buy?
We might have crept up behind the Prime Minister and pulled his coat-tails and said to him: Mr. Prime Minister, look around. If he had looked around he would have seen thousands of people in Canada on relief and in a state of malnutrition or starvation. What we were trying to do was to pull the Prime Minister's coat-tails a little harder so that he would see these people and so that we could say to him: What are you going to do about these people? Our policy was that you do not have to be entirely dependent upon foreign markets to be able to distribute the goods we have in Canada to our own needy people. The difference between the two parties was this: The Prime Minister wanted to sell Canada to the rest of the world, while the Social Crediters wanted to give Canada to the Canadian people. If that is what the Prime Minister means by saying that we are distin-terested in foreign trade, then I will accept the charge; I do not mind it a bit. But I say to hon. members that what we were trying to tell the Prime Minister was this: We can offer our surpluses to the world, certainly we can, and yet at the same time by proper management of our monetary system we can also give to the Canadian people one of the highest standards of living in the world.
The world trade policy of the Prime Minister was simply this, to use a homely illustration. It does not matter how many eggs we have to fry; we must first feed the whole world with eggs before we can be permitted to fry our own. That was just about the Prime Minister's position with respect to foreign trade.
Of course, on that occasion the Prime Minister also had to tell the people of Alberta why we were not included on the San Francisco delegation. I do not say that he stated it as baldly as that. ,This is what he said, and I am quoting from the same dispatch:
War and Demobilization

Mr. King said it was true Social Credit members voted for participation in the San Francisco conference, but their position was hedged about with qualifications. He quoted John Blackmore, Social Credit house leader, as saying the only voices raised against the proposals for the San Francisco conference had been those of Social Credit members.
What does the Prime Minister expect from members of parliament? Does he expect us to sit here in our chairs, which apparently we are not to be allowed to take home with us, and to acquiesce in all that he says?


John Horne Blackmore: Be little yes-men.


Ernest George Hansell: Yes; does he expect that? If he does, here is one group that he is going to be sadly disappointed in. Did not the Prime Minister say that he wanted the views of the various parties in the house? Well, we gave him our views, and here is something for other groups to think about. I want you to notice the way his statement reads:
He quoted John Blackmore, Social Credit house leader, as saying the only voices raised against the proposals for the San Francisco conference had been of Social Credit members.
Therefore, says he in effect, I will take on my delegation only those who will not oppose me; the only ones that I want with me are those who will say "yes." That evidently is the truth of the situation, based upon the Prime Minister's own statement. I think other groups in the house should resent that statement. If they do not, they lay themselves open to the charge of being yes-men to the Prime Minister of Canada, who perhaps in the end became yes-man to the world's big power shots.


Mr. KNOWLES:: The hon. member will
recall that the leader of the C.C.F. group voted against the government on the question of the admission of Argentina.


Gordon Graydon: No, he did not.


Ernest George Hansell: I take cognizance of that fact.


Gordon Graydon: But he did not.


Mr. MacINNIS:: He voted against it, anyway, to the extent that he was able.


Gordon Graydon: He did not vote against it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All I am asking the hon. member to do is to recognize that the leader of this group was not a yes-man.


John Horne Blackmore: He surely was, before he went away.


Ernest George Hansell: He was not on the question of Argentina. But I was going to say that I regard that as a very minor point in-

deed, because there were other nations which were seeking admission to the San Francisco conference. Let me ask this: Did the same man who objected to one nation raise his voice when the recognized government of Poland were not admitted to the conference?


Mr. JAQUES:: No, he did not.


John Horne Blackmore: Why?


Ernest George Hansell: There is a principle involved there. However, I did not intend to get into that discussion.


An hon. MEMBER:: Neither did they.


Ernest George Hansell: The Prime Minister goes
on:
The people of this province who have taken so large a part in the achievement of victory do no-t, I am sure, want the fruits of victory thrown away in political isolationism and economic nationalism.
We want to nail that charge to the wall as a consummate lie. We never did want to throw victory away by any stand we ever took, and that the people recognize this is shown by the fact that we are the only party in the house every one of whose house members was returned in the last election.
Here is another term which is glibly used. You know, if a person rises anywhere in Canada, particularly in a public place, and especially on the floor of this house, and criticizes anything that Russia does, at once he calls down upon his head the anathemas of the red propagandists who saturate nearly all our worth-while institutions, and he is labelled a fascist. Yes, that is the term which is hung on him. Well, I am not so particularly concerned about what I am called. What I am interested in is what I am, and what I am and what I am called are two different things.
In the first place-and I am saying this because I am leading up to another point-I am a Christian. Not because I was bom in England or am a citizen of Canada. I am a Christian because I have explicit and simple faith in the redeeming grace of Almighty God. That is first. Second, I am a Canadian. Being a Christian I must speak the truth in soberness; and being a Canadian I must be loyal to Canada, my country and to the people of Canada.
What I have said brings me to my next point, which relates to this matter of "world cooperation". World cooperation, yes; would anyone rise in this house and say he did not believe in world cooperation? Of course he would not. Would anyone rise and say he was not prepared to work towards world cooperation? Of course he would not. But we

War and Demobilization
must be realistic when we use these terms- "world cooperation", "good will", "world community", "the fuller life", and so forth and so on. For cooperation is not a one way street; it must work two ways. The fact of the matter is that there are two great philosophies struggling for expression and bidding for world recognition. We can talk about a world community and world cooperation, but wherever the world's diplomats meet, be it at San Francisco, Bretton Woods, Dumbarton Oaks, Teheran, Yalta, Potsdam or anywhere else, the one big question is, must God have His way in the world, or must those forces of anti-God have their way in the world? We are not selling peanuts when we go to these great conferences where the world's mighty men meet. Behind the scenes of human activity the greatest battle of the ages is going on. It is a battle for the destiny of worlds of men and nations; it is a battle between the forces of righteousness and the forces of evil. Now when it comes to a matter of cooperation, good cannot cooperate with evil. You had better put that down as a fundamental principle; it cannot be done. That which is Christian cannot cooperate with that which is anti-Christian. Do we want a Christian democracy, or do we want a world with God ruled out? That is the question that should be answered.
The other day the Prime Minister made a statement in the house-and while I am a severe critic of the Prime Minister in his political actions-I do have some respect for him just the same; I am not going to say I have not. I believe he is sincere and desires to do that which is right. Mark you, I will say this too: what I have already said about these forces the Prime Minister knows. My own personal view is that he is cognizant of these things and that he is not insincere in his recognition of them. I do not know, but I do not believe that he told us all that was in his mind when he made his statement in the house the other day.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That would make some
reading.


Ernest George Hansell: Well, I do not think that I need any levity at this particular moment. I mean what I say. I believe the Prime Minister is conscientious in respect to those forces, shall I say, of the unknown world, if I can put it that way, and I believe he wants to do the right thing. His intentions may be good. This is what he said in his statement the other day as reported at page 492 of Hansard:
The task is not one of restoring the world as we knew it before the war.
I am inclined to think that he is going off into ethereal platitudes here, because we could ask him in what way the world has changed and I do not think that he could give us an answer. He says:
The task is not one of restoring the world as we knew it before the war. That world has gone. The collective task is to get the new world moving along paths that will lead to peace, happiness and the general welfare.
Then farther on he says:
I feel that I should see for myself something of the changed world in which Canada must make her way and take her part.
It is a very pleasant thing to talk about a changed world, but personally I cannot see that the fundamental and underlying principles that govern this world have changed at all. The only things that have changed so far as I can see, are the geographical and political boundaries. Apart from that, the world philosophies are still intact. The method by which we carry on our foreign trade is still intact. You may make a little adjustment here or a little adjustment there, but there is a great attempt to solidify the world trading facilities under one great and powerful international body, which is attempting to put us back on the gold standard, whereby no nation will be free to trade as it shall choose to trade unless it goes through those channels. And in that regard Canada is in danger of selling out her sovereignty.
How can we have what I should like to call a world Christian democracy? Can a Christian democracy cooperate in any way with totalitarianism? Personally I do not think it can. Jesus denounced the scribes and pharisees as hypocrites, but they were no more hypocrites than our ultra-internationalists who assume a sort of self-righteous attitude, and with their platitudinous phrases about world cooperation attempt to play into the hands of a programme to set up one huge world dictatorship. Can we cooperate with totalitarianism? Can we, as a democracy, cooperate with dictatorship? Dictatorship and totalitarianism mean the loss of freedom. Totalitarianism means force. It means compulsion; it means war; it means murder; it means plunder; it means political and economic gansterism. Therefore I ask the question, can any Christian democracy-if we put down as a fundamental thesis that we are one-cooperate with that?
I hold in my hand a clipping which contains the statement of a great man. This man, speaking before a certain body, said:
With many of you. I hoped that Russia would work out its own problems and that their government would eventually become a peace-loving
War and Demobilization

popular government with a free ballot which would not interfere with the integrity of its neighbours.
That hope is to-day either shattered or put away in storage against a better day.
The Soviet Union, as a matter of practical fact, is a dictatorship as absolute as any other dictatorship in the world.
Who said that? None other than President Roosevelt, speaking before the American youth conference in Washington in 1940.
What is the record of this totalitarian state?
1.	This state provoked, directed and supported civil war and aggression in Spain. They may have claimed the right to do so, I do not know; nevertheless that is what they did.
2.	This state concluded a treaty of nonaggression with Germany in August 1939, an act which enabled Hitler to launch his offensive. Perhaps they will say they had a legal right to do so. I am not arguing the point.
3.	From September, 1939, until June, 1941, this totalitarian state supplied Germany with various essential materials such as food and oil products.
4.	On September 17, 1939, this state committed an act of aggression against Poland, thus violating a treaty of non-aggression concluded with that country.
6.	Having occupied part of Poland, this state deported Polish citizens into various remote parts of Russia and confined them to concentration and labour camps under most inhuman conditions, comparable to those prevailing in German concentration camps.
6.	Following the partition of Poland this state committed acts of aggression against Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, deprived them of their independence, and subjected the populations to a rule of terror. Soviet Russia waged a war of aggression against Finland, violating the existing treaties.
7.	In all countries of eastern and southeastern Europe Soviet authorities are behaving in a way which does not differ from that of nazi Germany.
I have placed those seven points on record and I ask: Can we as a democracy cooperate with that? Just the other day I picked up the daily paper on my way down to the house and read an Associated Press despatch from Warsaw. I will not read it all, but here is part of it:
War-ravaged Poland is experiencing one of the greatest migrations in her long turbulent history, and two bridges across the Vistula here are the teeming gateways to the east and the west. . . .
fMr. Hansel!.]
From early morning until midnight there is a steady stream of men, women and children carrying all their worldly possessions strapped to their backs, in bags, in suitcases and in sacks.
All faces show lines of strain and work. Scarcely one, whether he is going east or west, has the slightest idea of where he will finally settle. They only know this has to be done, and they tramp on.
I ask: can we cooperate with that? I hear also glibly stated the term "liberation"-


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. I must inform the hon. gentleman that his time has expired.


Ernest George Hansell: Well, Mr. Speaker, I
suppose I shall have to stop. Even if I were given permission to go on it would take me another two hours at least to say all I should like to say, so I shall abide by your ruling. I expect I shall be able to say what I have to say at another time, but I want the house to know that I am not through with this subject.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sure they would respond, and one which would help them realize that this challenge is just as great as was the challenge of war.
I was pleased to-day to hear the Minister of Finance, in his capacity of Acting Prime Minister, table an order in council setting up a Canadian information service. In saying this I do not necessarily approve the extent to which we now have government by order in council, but I do approve the step taken. I know-at least I suspect-that my hon. friends to the right who belong to the Progressive Conservative party will say that this new organization is just a continuation of the wartime information board, and the chances are that they will oppose it.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member is not a mind reader.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, I shall leave it to them; but it is not long ago that the hon. member for Lake Centre was asking that the wartime information board be discontinued. I take it that board has now ended its days and has been replaced by the Canadian information service. It would seem that the name is modelled after a similar set-up in Great Britain, where the name "British information service" is used. I hope the government will not listen too carefully to the pleas made by hon. members to my right against these public information institutions. In a democracy we cannot have too much information, and the activities of the wartime information board were all to the good.
In my view such institutions as the national film board and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should not be limited by suspicion on the part of some on the opposition side of the house that they are used for purposes of political propaganda. Rather they should be given a freer hand to increase the dissemination of information of all kinds, not only in other countries but throughout Canada as well.
One task I should like to see the government give the new Canadian information service, the film board and the CBC, would be one in which those organizations would have a free hand to place before the Canadian people the importance of the task of rehabilitating war-torn Europe. In other words, let us get on with the job of supporting wholeheartedly the work of UNRRA, which got off to such a good start, but which, it seems to me, has been allowed to bog down under officialdom and red tape.
Not long ago Professor Earl G. Harrison, who is dean of the university of Pennsylvania law school, and a former immigration commissioner of the United States, was appointed by President Truman to act on a special

committee to investigate conditions under which people are living in Europe, with special reference to the plight of the Jewish people. In his report, which was published, in the New York Times of Sunday, September 30, two days ago, Professor Harrison had a number of comments to make about UNRRA. The report is a lengthy one, and I shall not load Hansard with quotations from it. Professor Harrison makes it clear that UNRRA is trying to do a good job, but that it is handicapped by lack of competent and efficient personnel in the areas in which its work is being carried on. He points out further that it is hampered by a lack of the kind of cooperation which should exist between UNRRA and the military authorities. The whole picture is one of a noble idea failing for lack of the support it should have. All of this underlies the point I am trying to make, namely, that we have not yet had the imagination to see in UNRRA just as great a challenge as we had in the war itself. In fact, the challenge is really far greater.
I am not criticizing the government for anything it has done in connection with UNRRA, and most certainly I am not criticizing the Minister of Finance when he asks for $25 million. That sum is far too small, and my criticism is that we in Canada have not done enough for this organization. It has been treated as a sort of step-child in the hope that somehow it will grow up and be able to do the job assigned to it. The other day the Minister of Finance made this statement about the $25 million he is asking for UNRRA under the terms of the resolution now before the house. I quote from page 564 of Hansard for September 28:
This is intended to enable us to furnish, before the end of our fiscal year, a portion of a second contribution to UNRRA, which the Canadian government has agreed to make, provided that the United States and other contributing nations will also make a second contribution.
I suppose that that is the way a minister of the crown would put it, and that is the way governments have to act. I do feel, however, that Canada should be not holding back in this fashion and saying; We wall do so and so, provided that somebody else does his part.
The fate of civilization depends upon whether or not our generation has the imagination and the capacity to rehabilitate a world which we have had to tear apart by war. I plead with those in authority, with the government and with parliament, to face the seriousness of the question. I urge that we do our best not only here but in our constituencies and throughout the country to

War and Demobilization
arouse interest in UNRRA and other related activities. We have here some of the most glorious opportunities for service ever presented to any generation.
I take second place to no one in my concern for the people of Canada. Hon. members will recognize the persistence with which I have pleaded the lot of old age pensioners, and all citizens of this country whose problems need to be fought on the floor of this house. Hon. members will recall the fights I make for housing, and for the improvement of many adverse conditions found here in Canada. But alongside of that I emphasize the fact that it is useless for us to try to build up our own standard of living and our own situation here in this dominion if we are to let the world go to rack and ruin, as will happen if something is not done about living conditions in the countries that have been tom by war.
As I indicated when I rose, in speaking of the plight of the peoples in Europe I took as my motif the fact that none of us is free so long as there is bondage or slavery anywhere. I want to say a word especially about the plight of the Jewish people in Europe. I have referred already to the Harrison report which was made to President Truman, the full text of which appeared in last Sunday's New York Times. Professor Harrison summed up the plight of the Jewish people in Europe at the present time when he said to President Truman:
As matters now stand, we appear to be treating the Jews as the nazis treated them, except that we do not exterminate them. They are in concentration camps in large numbers under our military guard instead of S.S. troops. One is led to wonder whether the German people, seeing this, are not supposing that we are following or at least condoning nazi policy.
That is a terrible statement. Professor Harrison gives the details of what he meant. He relates stories of the barbed wire behind which many Jews are still languishing. He describes the horrible plight of these people, hungry, displaced, not knowing where their friends and relatives are, many of them without medical care or adequate clothing. Some of these people, to their chagrin, are forced to wear German S.S. uniforms, with the result that they are subject to all kinds of abuse. Hon. members will have noticed from the press that President Truman was greatly exercised over this report and that he has given orders to General Eisenhower to take immediate steps to see that something is done about the whole situation.
It does seem to some of us that it is a sad state of affairs that this race of people, who have been the pawns of so many cross-currents and conflicts down through the history of
mankind, should once again, just at a time when we thought we had finished with the horrors of war and were about to begin to build a new world, find themselves facing such hopeless and pitiful circumstances. I feel that I am only being human in rising in this parliament of Canada to express the hope that something will be done without delay to provide relief for these people from the sufferings they are undergoing.
Professor Harrison makes a number of recommendations in his report. The one he makes most strongly in that President Truman use his good offices to secure the abrogation of the MacDonald white paper of 1939 which prohibited, with a slight exception for five years, Jewish immigration to Palestine. Those who have been following the press on this point will know what has happened in the past few days. They will know that President Truman and Prime Minister Attlee have been in correspondence on this whole matter. We all recognize what a thorny question it is because of the position the Arabs are taking with respect to any change in Palestine policy. Incidentally I hold in my hand copies of an exchange of telegrams between the Mufti of Jerusalem and Hitler regarding the war in north Africa, made at a time when the armies of Rommel were rolling westward. I should like to quote the last sentence in one of the Mufti's telegrams to Hitler. It reads:
The Arab people will further continue to fight on your side against the common enemy up to ultimate victory.
I suggest that these are not people to whom we should be applying any policy of appeasement; yet I am not one to belittle the tremendous problem facing those who are concerned about the situation in the Balkans, the Mediterranean and the near east. The whole question is one that should lie heavily on the conscience of the world. Hon. members will recognize my wholehearted support of the government now in power in Great Britain, and in saying that I speak for the whole of this group. But we insist that the British government must carry out its pledge to re-open Palestine to Jewish immigration. The leader of this group, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), to-day issued a press release in which he said in part:
The C.C.F. has officially stated its opposition to the unfair and discriminatory white paper. The permission for fifteen hundred Jews to enter Palestine monthly is pathetically inadequate for their needs. They must be allowed to enter their national homeland in larger numbers. Only in Palestine have they been permitted to build a progressive and cooperative society. Their record there, in terms of both social and economic justice, speaks for itself.
War and Demobilization

The C.C.F. has sent cables to the Right Honourable Clement Attlee, Prime Minister of Great Britain, and to Morgan Phillips, secretary of the British Labour party, urging that the British government give every consideration to a revised white paper which will provide European Jewry with the freedom to migrate to, and live in the mandated territory of Palestine.
The leader of this group sent that out on our behalf, and I take this occasion to say that we believe the hands of the British government need to be strengthened in this matter. We feel they are right in saying that any action which might result in trouble- I believe such threats are only a bluff, but the possibility has to be faced-should be taken as a joint responsibility by the British people and the people of the United States, perhaps indeed by the peoples of all the united nations. It is because I feel that the British government should have its hands strengthened in its effort to do the right thing in connection with this matter that I raise my voice in this parliament. I dare to assume that most hon. members will agree with me that the doors of Palestine should be opened, and that these people, who, God knows, have suffered down through the years far more than any human beings should have had to suffer, should get some relief from the terrible conditions which they have had to face in Europe during these last few years, and which, sad to say, appear to exist in Europe even at the present time.
I hope that the government of this country will interest itself in this whole matter and, along with the United States, declare to the British government its readiness to stand with them in connection with any policy that that government feels it should take for improving the position of these people.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: Would the
hon. member go so far as to say that Canada should provide soldiers to fight the Arabs to protect these people, if it should come to that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is the kind of question which it is difficult to answer because it is hypothetical, for I firmly believe that the position taken by the Arabs is one of bluff.


Mr. MERRITT:: Is the hon. member aware that only within the last week the British government has had to send a parachute division to Palestine?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am quite aware of that. I am also aware of the complications that have arisen because of the position taken by certain sections in India with respect to this whole question. I could indulge in a cross-fire argument, Mr. Speaker, but that is something I am anxious to avoid at this time.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I was not
being critical at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I fully recognize that.
My reason for trying to avoid argument is that I am trying to put this matter on such a plane that it will command unanimous support. The hon. gentlemen who have questioned me know what their own answers would be, but even so I detected in their words a note of sympathy with the position I am taking, and I pass that sympathy along to the government of the day.
I want to speak for a moment or two about another matter which, although on first thought, it may seem to be unrelated to what I have been discussing, is closely connected with this whole question of our playing some part in relieving the suffering that the war has left in its wake around the world. We cannot play our part simply by a national clothing collection such as we are having this month, no matter how much effort we put into that campaign. If we are to play our part in helping to rehabilitate war-tom Europe we should seek to maintain the level of production in this country at its war-time height, and so I urge again upon the government that it reconsider its whole policy of reconversion and its plans with regard to post-war employment. As I study the government's plans and try to see their point of view, it seems to me that they are thinking too much in terms of the needs of this country solely on the basis of the income that our people have or may have during the next few years. We should be planning our production not only to meet the needs of the people of this country, but also to be able to render some real contribution to the rehabilitation of war-torn countries.
In that connection I think, for example, of a plant like MacDonald Brothers aircraft factory in Winnipeg, which instead of being more or less idle to-day might be used for the making of prefabricated houses for shipment to these countries. It is a tremendous undertaking, Mr. Speaker, if one lets his imagination play upon it, for us to make the kind of contribution that I envisage. But I come back to this. What we undertook in the war was a tremendous task. If the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply had been told in 1939 that under their direction, if you want to put it that way, we would be producing in this country the volume of goods and services and munitions and supplies that we did produce in 1943 and 1944, I doubt that they would have believed it possible for us to do it. But it was undertaken because of the necessity of the task that lay before us. There is now the task of rebuilding

War and Demobilization
the world which we have torn asunder, and we now should be producing with the same determination that we displayed during the war. My contention is that the whole question of what shall be done with war plants, and our plans for reconversion, production and employment, should be worked out not just in terms of our own internal economy, but in terms also of what we can do to meet the needs of the world as they face us at the present time.
I might call to the attention of 'the government-I shall not take time to go into detail -the representations that have been made by both the major labour congresses in this country on reconversion and employment. I would urge upon the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply-I hope they will not think I am actuated by political considerations, because I am very serious-that Canada play its maximum part in producing sufficient goods and services to help rebuild the world and give us a chance to achieve the peace which we hope will be permanent after all the sacrifices we have gone through during these past six years.


John Horne Blackmore: May I ask by what means the hon. member proposes that the government should raise the money with which to buy the products of all these Canadian factories so as to render them available to the peoples of the world, perhaps through some such scheme as UNRRA?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The government did not have much difficulty in raising the money, as the hon. member himself has often pointed out to the Minister of Finance, to purchase the supplies required for war. In fact, year after year when the Minister of Finance brought down his budget he simply borrowed the money that was required to balance the budget, partly from the chartered banks and partly from the Bank of Canada. The Minister of Finance himself said many a time- I note that he is in his seat and can correct me if I am wrong-that the huge expenditures of money we were making were not to be regarded as sums taken from a board which had to be put back, but were an index of our greatly increased production. When hon. members to my right and to my left have taunted the Minister of Finance about the size of the national debt, his reply has always been that if we would keep up our level of production we could handle any national debt that might develop under his financial leadership. I have my own. ideas which I could go into if there were time, but I simply say that I think that the experience of the war years, even under a Liberal capitalist administration, has shown that it can be done if only we have the will.
This is coming dangerously close to a political discussion, but I think hon. members will recognize from the tone of my remarks that I rose to-day not for such a purpose, but to speak on what seems to me is the task before us at this time, namely, that we should be gearing our economic activities, our production and our reconversion programme, not only to improving the standing of living in Canada, but also to playing our maximum part in the rebuilding of a war-tom world.


John Horne Blackmore: Would I be safe in assuming from the hon. member's reply that he would favour adding to the national debt of Canada at the colossal rate to which we have become accustomed during the war?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member is not safe in assuming that at all. My quarrel with the Minister of Finance is that while I believe his declaration to be true that our huge war expenditures have been only an index of our increased production, he has permitted that index-simply a matter of figures-to be turned into additions to the national debt on which interest has to be paid for all time. That means taking a portion out of the national income each year from now on and giving it to a privileged few, which as I see it is completely unrealistic, and fails to recognize the basic factors in the production of goods and services, which are human labour and raw material.
I have had quite a bit to say about our producing and sending overseas supplies of one kind and another. There is one kind of material, however, which I hope Canada will stop sending to certain countries I could name. I confess, despite the explanations about it in the press which I have seen from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon), to considerable concern over the shipment of aluminum to Spain this year. I am not going to make an issue out of it at this point, or debate it at length, but I want to put on record the fact of such shipment as it was contained in sessional paper 145 tabled yesterday by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in response to questions which I had placed on the order paper. In this return the minister indicates that from January 1 to August 31, 1945, Canada shipped aluminum in bars, blocks, ingots, sheets, et cetera, to Spain, in the amount of 4,408,500 pounds. That is the fifth largest quantity sent to the various countries to which we exported aluminum this year. I may make it a little plainer: we have exported aluminum to twenty countries thus far in 1945. The largest quantities have gone to the United Kingdom, the United States, Russia and

Vf ar and Demobilization

Switzerland, and the next largest is to Spain. Bearing in mind the political situation in Spain, and the experiences we have had with that country over the last number of years; bearing in mind too-I will try to say this with all the reserve of which I am capable, but I feel very deeply about it-the years past when we shipped scrap iron and other war materials to aggressor nations, I cannot but be deeply concerned that already we should be shipping this material, which is so useful in war, to a fascist nation. I hope that some member of the government will explain this, or, better still, indicate to us that it will be stopped. Let us this time refrain from sending war materials to any country which might use them for further aggression.
With that reservation, Mr. Speaker, I urge with all the power that I can that the government, parliament and the country put its shoulder to the wheel and get on with the tremendous task and the great opportunities which are presented to us in the aims and activities of UNRRA.


Mr. E. D. FULTON (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate because I want to discuss one point which has already been raised; but before I come to that particular point, in view of the fact that a week-end has intervened since this debate started, and yesterday was private members' day, I crave the indulgence of hon. members while I run over some of the matters which have been raised, in order to make clear the subject with which I wish to deal.
In introducing this resolution the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) pointed out that we were being asked to approve the raising of a great deal of money, and at the present time the main purpose, as I understood it, was that the defence estimates might be got through.
The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) followed. Speaking, I might say, on behalf of the official opposition, he outlined the four principles which we feel should govern Canada in her attitude toward defence matters. The four principles, I should like to recall to hon. members, were: first, that Canada should maintain sufficient forces to guarantee the defence of Canada and also to enable us to fulfil whatever might be our commitments to the united nations organization; second, that the efficiency of those forces must be our prime consideration; third, that the forces must be allied with scientific developments; fourth, that there should be the maximum coordination of developments and practice with Great Britain and the United States in
rMr. Knowles.]
respect of our armed forces. Finally he suggested that there should be a parliamentary committee on defence along the lines of the military and naval affairs committees of the United States congress, in order that hon. members might be better informed as to the requirements for defence and keep the people of Canada better informed on these subjects.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), I am glad to say, supported in principle all the suggestions which had been outlined by the hon. member for Vancouver South. We had further talks from the leader of the Social Credit group in this house (Mr. Low) and from the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), both of whom spoke in very fine terms of the prospects of peace under the united nations charter. The hon. member for Lake Centre directed the attention of the house to the question whether the moneys which we are to be asked to vote will be expended exclusively under orders in council under the terms of the emergency War Measures Act. He asked the specific question, is the war at an end? Do the provisions of the emergency War Measures Act govern all our actions? That is the point with which I wish to deal this afternoon.
I was going to base my stand on the statement that it is time, in my view, that we restore to parliament all its liberties and its privileges and recover in full the democratic system of government. I must confess that I had some doubts put into my mind in listening to the speech of the hon. member for Ros-thern (Mr. Tucker) when we were supposed to be discussing the question of the relief of settlers under the Soldiers Settlement Act, and he discussed Liberal candidates and how it was that he and the other Liberal members for Saskatchewan had been elected; how it was that the hon. member for Lake Centre was elected, and then the question of the size of families and the amounts of payments under the Family Allowances Act; and we even discussed-


William Ross Macdonald: I must remind the hon. member that that question has been decided.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I defer to your ruling. I was not trying to reopen the discussion; I was merely referring to it in connection wdth my own point. However, I will pass on to other matters.
Dealing directly with the question of whether or not we should allow ourselves to be governed under the provisions of the War Measures Act, I wish to refer again to the wording of that act. We find these words in section 6 of the act. I should like to explain

War and Demobilization
that after certain powers have been conferred, or perhaps after certain powers exercisable by the governor in council have been outlined in sections 3, 4 and 5 of the act, section 6 goes on to say:
The provisions of the three sections last preceding shall only be in force during war, invasion, or insurrection, real or apprehended.
I wish to make it clear that it is only during war, invasion or insurrection that the powers exercisable under the emergency War Measures Act can be fairly invoked. How do we decide whether a state of war, invasion or insurrection exists? I shall refer hon. members to the provisions of section 2 of the act which reads as follows:
The issue of a proclamation by His Majesty, or under the authority of the governor in council shall be conclusive evidence that war, invasion, or insurrection, real or apprehended, exists . . .
The section goes on to say that:
. . . until by the issue of a further proclamation it is. declared that the war, invasion, or insurrection no longer exists.
Therefore we are in this position, that the decision as to whether or not a state of war, invasion or insurrection exists is squarely up to the governor in council, a matter to be decided by the cabinet. I would direct the attention of the responsible ministers and of all hon. members to the fact that it is not a question of whether or not a state of emergency exists; there is no mention of emergency in the act in that connection. It is a question of whether or not a state of war, invasion or insurrection exists.
I should like to remind hon. members again that there is a great deal of significance attached to this question; because if it is decided that a state of war, invasion or insurrection exists, then certain things can be done by order in council, for instance, all the things which are to be done under the provisions of the bill, the resolution for which is now before the house. I should like to read the provisions of that resolution which are to be found at page 546 of Hansard-.
Hon. J. L. Ilsley (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure *to provide, inter alia . . .
I shall read only part of the resolution, but I should like to make it clear that the parts I am leaving out do not alter the sense.
1. That sums ... be granted to His Majesty towards defraying any expenses . . . that may be incurred . . . under the authority of the governor in council . . . for
(a) the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada.
47696-43J
Those are very wide terms. Under the terms of the resolution there is very little that cannot be done by order in council. Consider the wording "the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada". These words give to the cabinet even wider powers than are given to the dominion parliament under section 91 of the British North America Act. I should like to read the relevant words of section 91, which read as follows:
It shall be lawful for the queen, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons . . .
To enact these things:
... to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Canada.
We now have it "for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada." These powers are as wide as, in fact they are wider than, the powers originally given to parliament under the British North America Act. Further, the resolution contains these powers:
.	.	. for the carrying out of any measure
deemed necessary or advisable by the governor in council in consequence of the war.
If we allow that sort of thing to continue we are completely, and possibly for all time, surrendering the rights of parliament; we are giving to the governor in council powers for making and carrying out any measure deemed necessary or advisable in consequence of the war. That covers everything.
I again read from the terms of the resolution :
For the expeditious demobilization of the Canadian armed forces.
That is to be carried out by order in council. Do we wish, Mr. Speaker-and I ask hon. members to consider this carefully- to entrust the cabinet with all the power to make every regulation with regard to demobilization? I submit that if we do so we are denying the democratic principle of responsible government. Under that system we are the ones who are supposed to decide on the validity or advisability of any measure introduced by the government of Canada, or any detail of the government of this country. Although under certain circumstances we may be justified in surrendering our responsibilities or handing over our responsibilities for a limited time, we are only justified in handing them over to those who by their attitude and actions show that they themselves are responsible persons and will safeguard the rights and privileges that we ourselves have put into their safekeeping. I suggest to the careful consideration of hon. members that we should not hand over the powers to make final and complete regulations for the de-
War and Demobilization

mobilization of our armed forces when the minister himself seems reluctant to assume the responsibility of making those regulations, when he seeks as he sought in this house on September 24 to hand over the .responsibility to a general of the armed forces. I submit that is putting us in a position where, if we criticize the decisions taken, we are criticizing an officer overseas, not a responsible officer of the department, but an officer in charge of the armed forces. That is a denial of the principle of responsible government, and for my part I am not willing to hand over those responsibilities which I should exercise, if they are to be exercised in that manner.
In considering further the matter of demobilization of our armed forces I would ask this question:	For whom did those forces
fight, for the cabinet ministers, or for Canada? I think the answer is obvious, that they fought for Canada. Then, I suggest that it is up to us, the elected representatives of Canada and of those armed forces, to see to it that the regulations for their demobilization are approved by us before they are put into effect. If we adopt the other attitude I suggest we are going to allow all matters of defence policy to be determined by order in council.
Here I wish to refer to an incident which took place the other day. I should like to read an article which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of September 29, 1945. The dispatch is dated Vancouver, September 28, and reads:
Canada's peace-time navy, "much larger" than before the war, will be divided evenly between the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, it was announced here to-day by Rear Admiral V. C. Brodeur, R.C.N., commanding officer, Pacific coast.
Admiral Brodeur said at a press conference the post-war navy will include cruisers, aircraft carriers, destroyers and frigates but no corvettes. Ships, men and training facilities would be divided fifty-fifty basis between the two coasts.
I will not read the whole dispatch, but this officer went on to describe in detail the constitution of the navy. This is the most -complete statement of policy to have been made available to this house as yet on the subject of naval affairs; and this statement of policy came not from the responsible minister of the department or a responsible official, but from a naval officer in Vancouver, some three thousand miles away from this building, although the naval estimates were scheduled to come up first and the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) had asked for an over-all statement of defence policy, which as yet he has not received. We were supposed to discuss and consider those estimates; that was our responsibility, but the only clue we are given is in this statement, made in Vancouver.

I realize that perhaps it does not do for a new member to come here and appear to lecture the house or responsible ministers of the crown, and I pause here to make sure to myself that I am not standing up here lecturing. I had certain ideas as to the responsibility of my job when I should come here, and as to the seriousness of that responsibility. I am surprised and alarmed to find that under the present set-up, so long as we have a continuation of this system of government by order in council, however well intentioned may be the motives behind those orders in council, I am not exercising my responsibility; and I feel that I cannot allow this situation to continue without bringing it to the attention of the other members of this house so that we may have an open and frank discussion on this matter and I may be informed in the net result as to whether or not I may have an overdeveloped sense of responsibility. I do not think I have, and that is why I am bringing this matter into the open.
To continue this discussion, this being the situation: the powers which I have described, and which appear in the terms of this resolution, being available to the government, to be exercised by order in council, with the serious consequences I have indicated in the matter of our own handing-over of responsibility, together with the fact that the existence of this situation depends upon the decision by the cabinet as to whether or not war, invasion or insurrection exists, I think we are entitled to call on the cabinet and on the responsible ministers to consider that question seriously and fairly. When the matter was brought up by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) we saw in the attitude of the ministers of the crown indications that they have not considered it either seriously or fairly. The hon. member for Lake Centre read extracts from an opinion given by the council of the Canadian Bar Association. I should like to refresh the memory of hon. members by reading part of that opinion again:
Your committee is of opinion that the state of war cannot and should not, even by the authority of a statute, be deemed to continue to exist when the war itself is over. Let us make the distinction here between the war emergency itself, which is the fact of a state of war, and an economic emergency which, though a consequence following the war, is not the war emergency itself. If the federal administration feel that there may exist, after the war, in relation to the economic condition of the country, a state of emergency of a most serious character, and national in scope, let them face the issue squarely, and submit to

War and Demobilization
parliament a new law, so as to affirm the exist; ence, or the apprehension, and determine the exact nature, of that new emergency.
Hon. members will recall the attitude adopted by certain ministers of the crown when the hon. member for Lake Centre read that opinion. They will recall the attitude of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Abbott) and also, I think, the inference correctly drawn therefrom by the hon. member for Lake Centre. I should like to read that exchange, referring to page 577 of Hansard.
Mr. Abbott:	Which member wrote the
opinion ?
A little further down:
Mr. Diefenbaker:	The chairman of the committee was Gustave Monette, K.C., of Montreal.
Mr. Abbott: That is why I asked the question.
Mr. Diefenbaker:	Surely the Minister of
National Defence does not suggest that the following members of the bar . . .
Then he named a list of distinguished members of the bar.
. . . would allow the signing of a report with respect to their understanding of the law to be influenced because a certain man happened to be chairman?
That is the inference drawn from the attitude taken by the Minister of National Defence which, in considering a constitutional question of this importance, I submit was a most irresponsible attitude. Yet this is a member of the cabinet which is asking to have all these powers, exercisable by order in council, vested in it. I should like to read further from the report of the Canadian Bar Association. this time from the report of the committee on legislation affecting civil liberties, as contained in the minutes of the mid-winter council meeting, at page 33:
Your committee reports that no further progress has been made towards obtaining the privilege of viewing legislation in the form of orders in council and board orders prior to adoption, in order that suggestions for the preservation of public rights might be made, niter the experience with order 294 of the rentals administration section of the wartime prices and trade board, where any suggestions along the lines mentioned were invariably ruled out as being interference with policy, it was felt that there was little point in pressing matters as it was obvious that bureaucratic policy and preservation of civil liberties were incompatible. . . .
And further:
Your committee's conclusion must be that there is no hope for relief from this most undemocratic form of dictatorship under the guise of legislation, and that so long as persons having no real responsibility to constitutional forms of government are given the power to regulate the rights of the individual, many of those rights will continue to be subject to the kind of totalitarian rule which the free peoples are fighting to abolish from the world.
That report is signed by R. M. Willes Chitty, in case the Minister of National Defence may be interested. The point I am trying to make here is that responsible persons outside the government, acting in good faith-legal experts-have reviewed this situation and come to certain conclusions. I submit that these conclusions on matters affecting civil liberty should have the most serious consideration of all hon. members of this house, including the members of the cabinet. Therefore I should like to read, for the Minister of National Defence especially, a previous report written while the war emergency existed, and by that I mean while the war was actually going on. This is a report of the same committee on civil liberties, which appears at page 600 of the "Canadian Bar Review" for 1944.
Whatever opinion anyone might have as to any possible abuse by the federal authorities, or their delegated boards, of the wide powers so granted to them, and in spite of the civil encroachments this war legislation has developed against the liberty of the subject, your committee feel that .this association ought not to do anything that might appear to antagonize, or even directly criticize, the principle of full control, during the war, of the citizen, his liberty, property and activities, to the extent that the government deem necessary for the safety of the nation. The government alone have full information of the necessities of the hour, and however well informed we, of this association, may be, we should not assume the risk of embarrassing in the least degree the government of the country in the paramount task of winning the war.
That was an opinion written in 1944, while the war was on, by the same body which submitted in 1945 a report at which the Minister of National Defence scoffs. I do not notice the government crying out against the terms of this report, and therefore I imagine it must be most acceptable to them. I should like to draw to the attention of the minister the fact that this report of 1944 is signed by Gustave Monette, chairman.
Possibly the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) will be pleased to know that, in order to relieve him of any anxiety, I do intend to refer to the statement of the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Ilsley) in vhich he referred to the setting up of the Canadian information board. At the moment I am not referring to the question whether or not some such information service is desirable; I do not refer to that at all. But I do object most strenuously to the manner of constituting that board, while parliament is in session, when the war emergency has passed. I object to doing this by order in council, and without having referred the matter previously to the house.
. COMMONS
War and Demobilization
After what I have said I would repeat the question asked on Friday last, I believe it was, by the hon. member for Lake Centre. I would ask hon. members to bear in mind what I have said, and the attitude which in my opinion should govern in a situation of this kind. This is what we find at page 576 of Hansard where the hon. member for Lake Centre is questioning the Acting Prime Minister:
Mr. Diefenbaker:	. . . Are we still at war,
within the provisions of the War Measures Act, or are we not? That is the question I am asking.
Mr. Ilsley: The answer is yes.
Mr. Diefenbaker: What is that?
Mr. Ilsley: The answer is yes.
Mr. Diefenbaker: "The answer is yes?"
Mr. Ilsley: Yes.
Mr. Diefenbaker: That is the legal opinion that is given, is it?
Mr. Ilsley: Yes.
Mr. Diefenbaker: That is the legal opinion given by law officers of the crown?
Mr. Ilsley: Yes.
There can be no doubt that in the minds of the members of the cabinet, as represented in the statement of the Acting Prime Minister, we are still at war under the provisions of the War Measures Act, although it must be confessed that we have not yet seen the opinion given by the law officers of the crown.
If this is so, I suggest that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is not of the same opinion as the other members of his cabinet. His actions, his mental attitude and the precedent he has set are entirely different. In substantiation of that claim I would read to hon. members part of the statement made by the Prime Minister when he told us that he intended to go to the United Kingdom and to other countries in Europe. I submit that the statement of principle outlined by the Prime Minister, which influenced him in arriving at his decision to go over there is an exact statement of those principles which should govern us in asking the government of this country to hand back to us those rights which we voluntarily surrendered in war time.
I would ask hon. members to follow those portions of the Prime Minister's speech, which I shall read, to see if they do not agree with me when I state that the parallel is almost exact. Again I cannot take time to read the whole of the speech made by the Prime Minister on that occasion, but so far as I have been able, in respect of each excerpt I have taken care not to alter the general sense. Turning first to page 492 we find the Prime Minister reported as follows:
The world is still in a very troubled state.
. . . These last months have seen many changes in Europe, brought new persons into responsible office and faced them with new problems.

I submit that exactly the same is true of Canada. Then he continues:
We in Canada are directly concerned with the solutions which they are seeking to these problems.
We in the House of Commons of Canada are very much concerned with the solutions which are found to our Canadian problems. Hon. members will realize that I am quoting from the Prime Minister's speech and then tracing the parallel which I claim appears.
Then, further down on page 492 he says:
In the shaping of the new world order, a good start must be made in the right direction during these next critical months. Decisions that will have to be taken during the coming months may shape and determine the kind of *world we are going to live in.
I submit that exactly the same is true of the situation in Canada. Decisions which are taken in the coming months may determine whether we shall live under a full and free democratic system, or under a system of controls, bureaucracy and semi-totalitarianism.
Then the Prime Minister went on to say that certain questions-
. . . are important, but in the last analysis, many of them are of less consequence, even to the countries whose interests they affect nyjst immediately, than are questions of attitudes and objectives. .	.	. What kind of world do we
really wish to live in? What sort of effort are we ready to make to realize it?
What then, I ask hon. members, is our attitude to responsible government? What is our attitude to democracy? That is the important thing. It is more important even than the fact that something may be done more expeditiously by order in council. That is the frame of mind1 which induced the Prime Minister to take the serious step of leaving this House of Commons, and going to the United Kingdom.
What sort of effort are we making, what sort of effort are we ready to make to realize the kind of world we want to live in? With deference I would ask other hon. members to apply that question to themselves: What sort of effort are we ready to make to get back the power to carry out those rights and duties that are ours, an effort which I submit we can no longer shirk?
Then the Prime Minister goes on to say:
It is important that Canada should not merely be consulted, but that there should be clear recognition of Canada's right to effective participation in the great decisions where questions affecting the genera] ordering of the future peace of the world are under consideration.
It is important that parliament should not be merely consulted, but that there should be a clear recognition of our right to take part in decisions affecting our national life. The

War and Demobilization
Prime Minister continues:
During the war, for military reasons, it was necessary to acquiesce in the operation of wartime arrangements under which responsibility for major decisions on the direction of the allied war effort was concentrated in a very few hands.
This is similar to the process of handing over to the cabinet the power of government by order in council. Then he proceeds to say:
The continued use of methods such as were improvised to meet the urgent strain and hazards of war, whereby private settlements are arrived at between the great powers on issues of general interest, might well become a source of difficulty and even of danger.
I submit, finally, that now that the war is over, the continuation of those methods which we voluntarily allowed to be set up for the purpose of winning the war, will certainly become a source of potential danger and difficulty.
I should like to conclude my remarks by saying again that I do not intend to be taken as standing up and lecturing to this house or to the government. But I do feel that, however well intentioned the ministers of the crown may be in continuing to exercise their powers under orders in council, it is the mere fact of the continuation which constitutes the danger, not the motive in the minds of the ministers. I realize, as has been said here so often, that they are under a tremendous burden. They want to get things done expeditiously, quickly and efficiently. For the time being they consider it more efficient to carry on by order in council. We let time go on and the same thing is said again. In the meantime we get into the habit of government by order in council. It seems to be a good method of carrying on government and the ministers become a little more reluctant to part with their powers, but still with the best of motives. That I submit is where the danger lies. I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not questioning the motives of any minister in any of the remarks I have made to-day. I am merely asking the question: Have we not arrived at the stage when we must consider whether a continuation of this procedure offers a greater danger to our final achievement of full democracy than the possible loss of efficiency which may result if we stop government by order in council now?
For myself I am inclined to think the greater danger is in continuing government by order in council. Should the situation which I have in mind ever develop-and it may develop as a result of this practice of government by order in council-then all the sacrifices, all the efforts, all the losses and all the heart-break of the past six years will
have been worthless. Therefore I feel justified in taking the time of this house to ask all hon. members to give serious consideration to this question.
(Translation) Mr. Speaker, I spoke briefly this afternoon on the restoration of the powers of parliament. To my mind parliament is the guardian of all our rights, both individual and civil, and even though we may have agreed, under the stress of war to waive our rights voluntarily, nevertheless, at this time when the emergency period has ended, we must insist upon the restoration of those rights and privileges which are inherent in the democratic system; otherwise, we shall be guilty of having betrayed the democratic cause for which we have fought.
I regret very much that my knowledge of the French language is not yet perfect, but I have begun this week to take lessons. Finally, I ask all my fellow-citizens to believe that I voice their feelings or their thoughts when I say that we should uphold our rights so that the Canadian people may enjoy that democratic freedom which is guaranteed to them under the existing constitution.
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice) (Translation): May I offer my most sincere congratulations to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. As regards the statement he made when he informed us that he had begun this week to take French lessons, I must say that this is the second occasion on which I have heard him express himself in French in this house and I am sure that he has not begun the study of that language this week only since he has already acquired a fluency on which I congratulate him most heartily. I wish that he may frequently use the French language when participating in the debates of this house.
(Text) Mr. Speaker, I perhaps should offer a word of explanation for the. fact that it is now twenty minutes to six on Tuesday evening when I rise to answer some questions that were suggested by the <hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) on Friday afternoon as being proper to be asked. I rise at this time because the hon. member finished his speech just about six o'clock on Friday afternoon; yesterday was taken up with matters which were appropriate to be discussed on a private member's day and when I came into the chamber this afternoon I found that Mr. Speaker had arranged for three hon. members to be heard before I could have an opportunity of making any answer. The delay
War and Demobilization

certainly is not because I did not wish to make an answer. The hon. member asked, as reported on page 573 of Hansard-.
When will the proclamation be made that will terminate war in so far as the powers of the War Measures Act are concerned?
Then the hon. member went on to ask if the government suggested that to-day we are in the midst of war. He wanted to know if the minister suggested that it could continue the operation of the War Measures Act for one, two or three years or more hence when the government might by proclamation declare the war to be over. He stated that this was a matter of grave importance to the people of this country, and he wanted to know if powers were being exercised by the government to-day which were beyond the competence of the government to carry into effect.
That certainly is a serious question. It would be a serious situation for the Canadian people if any government undertook to exercise powers for which there was no legal basis. I can quite appreciate the concern that is felt in that regard. However, I think it is proper again to direct attention to the terms of the statute which it was found advisable to enact in 1914 at the time the first great war broke out.
The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) has expressed his views as to government by order in council, but I am sure that is not just what the hon. member meant. Of course government must be by order in council or by decisions of the ministers composing the council. It is quite a different matter though to have legislation by order in council. I take it that when the hon. member decried government by order in council he meant legislation by order in council. Under the terms of the British North America Act, which states that this country wished to have a constitution modeled upon that of the United Kingdom, it was declared in section 9:
The executive government and authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the queen.
That power is exercised by a high officer, styled the Governor General, on advice of the council composed of members responsible to the elected chamber, but the legislative power is to be exercised by His Majesty with the consent of the Senate and the House of Commons. When one complains of government by order in council I take it that what he means is the exercise of legislative powers by the governor in council.
It has been well established that the governor in council has no legislative powers that are not expressly given to him by parliament. He cannot exercise legislative powers without their

being powers delegated to him by some act of parliament. This act of 1914 was passed by a government which was formerly composed of some gentlemen still members of the Progressive Conservative party; they submitted to parliament a bill asking parliament in case of war to edelegate to His Excellency in Council legislative powers that otherwise would have to be exercised by the ordinary procedure of bills introduced into one or other of the houses, read three times in each and adopted in the usual form. That parliament decided that that was a wise thing to do and adopted the statute which is now chapter 206 of the revised statutes of 1927.
There had to be some definite point at which the delegation would commence and at which the delegation would end, and that parliament, not the parliament of which the members of the present government were members but the parliament of 1914, said that the delegation would start when the governor in council proclaimed that a state of war existed; that that proclamation would be conclusive as to the starting point, and that the delegation would continue until the governor in council declared by proclamation that the state of war which brought about the delegation had ceased.
There was a proclamation in September, 1939, that a state of war existed, and that proclamation is still in force. Actual hostilities have ceased, but the state of war still exists at the present time, and that state of war created a situation which had to be dealt with by the exercise of the powers which had been delegated for the purpose under the statute.
Hon. members ask: When are these powers to be handed back? They will not be handed back. They will cease to be exercisable certainly when there is a proclamation saying that the war has ended. They will be diminished; they have been diminishing by the cessation of hostilities-


John George Diefenbaker: If the minister would permit a question at this stage, does he argue that if the government decided not to issue the proclamation for two, three or four years, that delegation under the War Measures Act would be continued?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, I was just dealing with that very thing when the hon. member rose to put his question. I say that even now the extent covered by the delegation has already been diminished by reason of the changing situation which has occurred, and that has been recognized.

War and Demobilization
The situation is this. Under normal conditions there is a distribution of legislative powers by the British North America Act, and property and civil rights are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures. But it has been decided that when a state of war arises property and civil rights have to be dealt with under other than their normal aspects; they have to be dealt with in the interests of the security and safety of the state as a whole; and because of that, the ordinary jurisdiction of parliament is enlarged. Parliament at no time can delegate more than it has. When it has, because of a state of war, a wider jurisdiction than it has normally, and it delegates all its powers, it delegates more than it could delegate in normal times. An act such as the War Measures Act could, if it were thought desirable to do so, be passed at any time. I do not think there has been a parliament since confederation that has not delegated some legislative function to the governor in council. The right to delegate does not depend upon the existence or nonexistence of war. What depends on the existence or non-existence of war is the enlarged jurisdiction that parliament can exercise during war. '
The hon. gentleman has asked whether if a government chose to delay issuing the proclamation, would it continuously be empowered to exercise by order in council the whole of the powers of parliament with the possible exception of taxation and the appropriation of money, because the supreme court in a case which went before it said it was not deciding whether that had been or could be delegated because of the terms of sections 53 and 54 of the British North America Act? But if a government chose to do a thing of that kind it would not be proceeding within the spirit of the War Measures Act.


John George Diefenbaker: What recourse
would a person have?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	A member of parliament would have recourse by introducing at any time a bill to repeal the War Measures Act. The government is a committee of members of parliament, exercising powers because of the confidence placed in them by a majority in the House of Commons, and with no other right to do anything but the one that is based upon that fact.
I was not present when this statute was drafted. My impression on reading it is that the terms of section 2 were put there, not because it was felt that the powers would be abused, but because it was felt that there would have to be a definite starting point and a definite terminating date and that a gov-47696-44
ernment responsible to the House of Commons would properly comply with what would be supposed to be the desires of 'parliament and would make the proclamation at the proper time.


John George Diefenbaker: There were only
450 orders in council issued under the War Measures Act in the last war.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	If the hon. member
will wait, I will give the exact number of orders in council that have been passed.


John George Diefenbaker: Under the War
Measures Act?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Not necessarily under the War Measures Act, because government has to be by order in council. I think I had better give the figures right away.
From September 1, 1939, up to September 28, 1945, the number of orders in council, including minutes of council, approved by the governor in council, totalled 58,402. During the same period the number of treasury board minutes passed was 36,329. Therefore the total number of formal acts of the governor in council during this period is 94,731.
Treasury board minutes deal almost entirely with appointments, resignations and other personnel matters in the civil service; with payments to firms and persons for services rendered; with remissions of taxes and the like. They represent approximately thirty-six to thirty-seven per cent of the total number of lets by the governor in council.
The total also includes minutes of council passed under the Munitions and Supply Act, authorizing contracts for the supply of goods or services necessary for the prosecution of the war. This group represents forty to forty-five per cent of the total.
About sixteen per cent consists of orders in council and minutes of council authorizing contracts for accommodation, supplies and services for government departments, appointments to senior positions in the public service and other instruments of a purely administrative nature and of no general interest.
The remaining two to three per cent which are of public interest is composed of regulations such as national selective service regulations, wartime prices and trade board regulations, and the defence of Canada regulations and other war-time legislation.
That is the situation. In this country and under our system of government we do by minutes of the treasury board, which are then submitted to the council and get their authority from the approval of the governor on the recommendation of council, and by orders in council, things which under a system like that of our neighbours to the south are

War and Demobilization

done by executive acts. A great many of these are purely formal. All these munitions and supply matters, if they involved a sum of more than a stated amount, had to be authorized by an order in council.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister permit a question: how many of these orders in council were passed under the provisions of the War Measures Act? I will elucidate that. In the last war the number was 450. Is it not a fact that the number under the War Measures Act during the period of this war is some eight or nine thousand?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not know. I have not had a calculation made, and I do not think it would be possible to make an accurate calculation. There may be that number in which the War Measures Act i3 referred to, but one would have to examine each one to see whether or not it was an order in council which would stand without the War Measures Act. The War Measures Act is frequently referred to in a recommendation to council as an additional source of authority for the recommendation which is being made, but one would have to examine each of those orders in council, and it would be an onerous task to determine how many would not have validity without the authority derived from the War Measures Act. I can assure the hon. member that I am not just trying to evade the question.


John George Diefenbaker: They were able to do it last time. That was the answer they gave in 1922.


Mr. CLAXTON:: But how much inflation was there the last time?


Donald Methuen Fleming: You mean, inflation in orders in council?


Brooke Claxton: No, inflation in prices.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not want to be provocative, but it is a recognized fact that this time the government, rightly or wrongly -rightly, I think, and I am under the impression that the majority of the Canadian people agree-undertook to control prices and to prevent inflation, and that required frequent orders and regulations and frequent modifications of those orders and regulations.
If I may come back to the point with which I was dealing, I would not like the house to remain under the impression that the Canadian Bar Assocaition had taken the stand which has been, I will not say asserted, but referred to, in this house. I do not think that would be fair to the Canadian Bar Association. The association comprises a very

large number of eminent jurists who are quite cautious about their individual reputations as sound lawyers, and I do not think it would be fair to them to have it go out to the country at large that their considered opinion was expressed in the extracts which have been cited to this house. One of them was cited this afternoon; I had marked it for calling it to the attention of hon. members, and it contains the recognition at the outset that

Whatever opinion anyone might have as to any possible abuse by the federal authorities, or their delegated boards. . . . The government alone have full information of the necessities of the hour, and however well informed we, of this association, may be, we should not assume the risk of embarrassing in the least degree the government of fhe country in the paramount task of winning the war.


John George Diefenbaker: What date was that?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That was the 1944 report prepared by a committee of three, consisting of Mr. Gustave Monette, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Brossard. That report was submitted and there was some discussion about it in the meeting. The report was not submitted for acceptance, but it was submitted, and Mr. Monette had moved in submitting it:
That the work of complete scrutiny of federal and provincial legislation should be pursued and completed, with a view not to interfere in the slightest degree with the war effort, but to have our association prepared for sound and firm action immediately after the war, and possibly, in many cases, before the end of the conflict.
Your committee also feels that the work of complete research and analysis of all material legislation in Canada, and of preparing an exhaustive report of conclusions and suggestions, and of arranging action with the proper legislative authorities, would require, for a considerable time, the full attention of able members of this association. And we recommend the appointment of a permanent secretary or reporter, or committee, to give continuous attention to complete this task, up to the end.
We also recommend that the provincial committees already appointed be continued in office.
Mr. Monette stated that the report was a very lengthy one-someone said it was thirty-nine pages-and he had only a few copies of it. It was suggested that it be printed or mimeographed as quickly as possible for consideration on the Friday-this was a Wednesday. Mr. E. K. AVilliams, who is now president of the Canadian Bar Association, rose at that point and said:
It seems to me that the motion that Mr. Monette made is the only practical motion so far as this association is concerned. I know something of the contents of the report. There are thirty-nine pages of it. The recommendations depend upon the reasoning contained in the report. Now, Mr. Monette will know that I am not speaking critically of the work of the committee, because I think they have done very good work, but I personally would not-

Divorce
and I don't think any other member of this association would-be ready to express a decided view on the various matters contained in the report without the most careful consideration. Every line of it bristles with debatable points.
And a little further down:
I suggest, gentlemen, you should not vote on important matters of this kind on a blind vote to-day.


James Horace King: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I have to remark that it is six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. DIVORCE
AMENDMENT OP ACT OF 1930-JURISDICTION OP COURTS IN PROVINCE OF MARRIED women's DOMICILE
Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon) moved the second reading of bill No. 2, to amend the Divorce Jurisdiction Act, 1930.
He said: In moving the second reading of this bill I do not know that I can make it any clearer to the house or put it in any better way than to read the explanatory note. It is sought to amend section 2 of the act which reads as follows:
A married woman who either before or after the passing of this act has been deserted by and has been living separate and apart from her husband for a period of two years and upwards and is still living separate and apart from her husband may, in any one of those provinces of Canada in which there is a court having jurisdiction to grant a divorce a vinculo matrimonii, commence in the court of such province having such jurisdiction proceedings for a divorce a vinculo matrimonii praying that her marriage may be dissolved on any grounds that may entitle her to such divorce according to the law of such province, and such court shall have jurisdiction to grant such divorce provided that immediately prior to such desertion the husband of such married woman was domiciled in the province in which such proceedings are commenced.
That last sentence is the unfair part of the act sought to be amended. The explanatory note states:
The purpose of this amendment is to vest jurisdiction in the divorce courts of the several provinces to try actions for divorce at the suit of a married woman deserted by and living apart from her husband where the woman has been residing in the province for not less than two years prior to the date of the commencement of such action.
As the law presently stands the woman may bring suit only in the province where the husband was domiciled immediately prior to the desertion. This condition of the law works a
47696-44i
great hardship on the deserted married woman who by reason of such desertion may have been forced to move to another province from that where the desertion took place. It is unreasonable that she should have to take her action back to the former.
Let me illustrate. Suppose a woman resident and living in British Columbia is married to a man who comes from Ontario to marry her, takes her back to Ontario and there deserts her. She by force of circumstances must go back to her old home in British Columbia because she no longer has support and maintenance from her husband, he having deserted her. She remains living in British Columbia and has the necessary material or evidence upon which, in ordinary circumstances, to apply for and get a divorce from a court having jurisdiction in such matters.
The provision of the bill as proposed is that if the woman lives for two years in the province to which she has returned, after the desertion of her husband, she may commence her action for divorce in that province. For instance, in the example I have given she would not have to go back to Ontario to commence the action. That is what I ask the house to support.


Mr. JOSEPH ALFRED DION (Lake St. John-Roberval) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, as this is my first speech in the house, I take the opportunity of offering you my warmest congratulations on your election to the high position to which you have been named. Now that I am aware of the fine intellect, of the sense of justice and fairness which you have displayed in carrying out your duties since the opening of the session, I have no doubt that you are eminently qualified to fill the post for which you were chosen and will prove a worthy successor to your illustrious forerunners.
I also wish to congratulate the deputy Speaker elected last Thursday. I am not nersonally acquainted with him, but judging from the praise showered on him from both sides of the house, I have no doubt he is fully equipped to preside over our debates. I am happy to tender him my most sincere congratulations.
With reference to bill No. 2 before the house, I must say that I am opposed to it for the following reasons: first of all, on legal grounds, then I object to it for social reasons and . finally on moral and religious considerations.
To deal first with my objection on legal grounds: as a matter of fact, if we read the amendment submitted to the Divorce Jurisdiction Act of 1930, we find that its object
Divorce

is the extension, to a considerable degree, of the latitude granted those who wish to divorce in Canada.
First, let me quote the act as it is now. It reads as follows:
2. A married woman who either before or after the passing of this act has been deserted by and has been living separate and apart from her husband for a period of two years and upwards and is still living separate and apart from her husband may, in any one of those provinces of Canada in which there is a court having jurisdiction to grant a divorce a vinculo matrimonii, commence in the court of such province having such jurisdiction proceedings for a divorce a vinculo matrimonii praying that her marriage may be dissolved on any grounds that may entitle her to such divorce according to the law of such province, and such court shall have jurisdiction to grant such divorce provided that immediately prior to such desertion the husband of such married woman was domiciled in the province in which such proceedings are commenced.
It is intended to amend this section 2 and here is the text of the proposed amendment:
2. The court of any province of Canada vested with jurisdiction to grant a divorce a vinculo matrimonii shall have jurisdiction to entertain and try an action or other proceeding for divorce a vinculo matrimonii at the suit of a married woman who has resided in such province separate and apart from her husband for not less than two years immediately preceding the date of the commencement of such action or proceeding and on any grounds of entitlement to such divorce provided by the law of the province in which such court is constituted: Provided that she either was before or has been after the passing of this act deserted by and living separate and apart from her husband for a continuous period of not less than two years prior to the date of the commencement of such action or proceeding.
Briefly it means that a woman who has been domiciled with her husband in one of the provinces and who wishes to obtain a divorce merely has to live in another province, for two years to be entitled to apply for a divorce before a court of that province. In regard to the province of Quebec, where there are no divorce courts, a woman from that province might leave her husband, proceed across the boundary line into Ontario, a few miles from the province of Quebec, live there for two years and at the end of this period institute divorce proceedings against her husband in an Ontario court. In other words, this would enable married persons from the province of Quebec, where there are no divorce courts at present, to obtain a divorce in another province. This is my first legal ground against the proposed amendment. We *certainly cannot, in this indirect fashion, allow the people of Quebec, where no divorce *courts exist, to seek divorce in another province simply by living there for a period of

two years, sometimes by common consent of the parties concerned, as is often the case in divorce suits, when there is collusion.
Another reason for my opposition to this amendment is that it concerns the question of domicile which falls under civil rights. Under the British North America Act, the province has exclusive jurisdiction in matters of domicile, it is a field of provincial legislation. In the province of Quebec, this question is dealt with in the provincial civil code. However, the amendment before the house would transfer to another province the domicile of the person seeking divorce. A married woman would only have to go to any province, elect domicile there for a period of two years, and she would then be entitled to take a divorce action against her husband. I claim that a federal measure cannot deal with the question of domicile which is exclusively a provincial field of legislation and that even were parliament to pass this bill, it would be ultra vires, because it would then be legislating on a matter out of its jurisdiction. In the province of Quebec the domicile of a married woman is where her husband has his domicile.
I am opposing this bill from a legal standpoint on two grounds. The first is that it indirectly makes divorce possible for the people in the province of Quebec, there they cannot obtain it before their own courts. The second one is that this involves the question of domicile, a matter which lies solely within the purview of the civil law of each province.
Another ground on which I oppose this bill is that it evidently aims at facilitating divorce, which is a social evil. It may be a necessary evil in some cases, but it is nevertheless an evil, and every evil must be curbed as much as possible but never encouraged. Divorce, as every one knows, entails as a main consequence the disruption of the family. From a social standpoint the family is certainly the backbone of society. The family is what ensures continuity to the individual, and provides for him a link with the past and the future. An outstanding French orator, Jaures, has said that the individual is tied to life by the immutability of the tomb and by. the rocking of the cradles, in other words, by his ascendants and his descendants. Divorce, or the separation of married people, gives the custody of the children to one party or the other, thus destroying the social unit and jeopardizing the very existence of society. It is certainly tire worst evil of modem times.

Divorce
I feel we are right in stating that we should object to all legislation which tends to make divorce easier, more acceptable or more defensible.
I know we will be told there are many wretched, couples, especially since the great war when they met and married to live unhappily afterwards because of incompatibility. But must we, for that reason, intensify the evil by making divorce still more easily obtainable, which would increase the number of ill-assorted matches? That means that in five or ten years, even more people will be seeking divorce. Such a method of procedure, far from curbing the evil, is sure to spread it. Therefore, I believe we should oppose all measures which tend to facilitate the granting of divorce in our country.
As a last consideration, divorce, by setting itself against the indissoluble character of marriage is legislation of a purely pagan conception. I submit, therefore, that even if our country has no official religion, we are, nevertheless, a Christian nation. We are not ashamed to state it and I heard it proclaimed this afternoon. Further, daily, at the opening of the sitting, we invoke the Almighty and we express our faith in Christ. When peace was declared the leader of our nation did not hesitate to thank God, to make a confession of faith. If we are a Christian nation, if we abide by principles which distinguish us from pagan peoples, we must of necessity endeavour to prevent the adoption in our country of legislation tending to lead us back to paganism of olden times. History tells us that during the decline of ancient Rome, morals militated against the family and divorce was provided for in the laws. A woman no longer reckoned her age by the number of consuls but by the number of men she had married. Most assuredly, as divorce is made easier to obtain, the morals will become more dissolute and family life which is tire backbone of society will be jeopardized to a greater extent.
For all these reasons I object to the proposed amendment: first, from a legal standpoint, it is proposed by indirect means to enable married persons in tne provinces where there are no divorce courts to look elsewhere for such courts.
Second, because it involves the question of domicile, a matter which lies solely within the purview of provincial legislatures and because the proposed amendment would be unconstitutional if it were to be passed.
Finally, the third ground, as I said a few moments ago, is that a legislation tending to facilitate divorce would tend to disrupt society in weakening family ties. That is why, having
at heart the welfare of my country, I suggest that we should reject this amendment, holding on to the present provisions of the act so that we may ensure the happiness of the nation and the prosperity of the people.


Mr. EUGENE MARQUIS (Kamouraska):: (Text) Mr. Speaker, I consider it is my duty to say a few words about this measure. What is the purpose of this amendment? First, it is to facilitate the granting of divorces; second, to create a new jurisdiction for the granting of divorces; third, to oust the jurisdiction of our Quebec civil courts; fourth, to protect private interests to the prejudice of public interests, and fifth, to disorganize the family and society. The effect of the present amendment certainly would be prejudicial to the whole community. The rights of the husband are not protected. On what grounds can he base his defence if he is summoned to appear before a court in another province? It will be impossible for him to subpoena his witnesses. In many cases the wife will allege that her husband has abandoned her. If on the contrary the wife has abandoned her husband, the latter should have the right to prove the facts in support of his defence. Moreover, it would be conducive to serious abuses. The wife would have only to go abroad for four or five years, and then institute an action against her husband. If the common home were in Vancouver, the wife could take her action in Halifax. This would be a great distance from the Vancouver home, and would entail great expense if the husband wished to subpoena his witnesses and appear before the Halifax court.
Ab a matter of principle, a British subject has the right to be summoned before the court having jurisdiction in the place of his domicile, and there does not seem to be any serious reason for violating that rule. I contend, too, that this measure would disregard family rights. While a mother was abroad, the children might live with their father for some years. No matter what her behaviour might have been, she would have the right .to take proceedings against her husband, who has kept, the children. Social rights would be ini jeopardy. Any measure which facilitates; divorce divides the family, destroys the father's; and mother's authority, and ruins the children's; love.
(Translation) Mr. Speaker, I wish to sum-up my arguments as briefly as possible and' with my colleague, the hon. member for Lake St. John-Roberval (Mr. Dion), I invoke- the main reasons for my opposition to this amendment.
Divorce

The husband and wife must surely enjoy identical rights in connection -with divorce. It cannot be presumed in advance that the husband is in the wrong and the wife in the right or vice versa.
Then, if they enjoy the same right, why presume, in the present amendment, that the husband is in the wrong, by allowing the wife to take action against him in any province of Canada, be it far removed from the home she previously inhabited in the company of her husband? I claim that the object of this provision is purely and solely to facilitate the granting of divorces in this country. There is no other reason, for if a wife be deserted by her husband, if she be forsaken, as it is claimed, if she be deserving of the sympathy of the house and the whole country, it is evident that she will take action in the very place where she can secure witnesses, where her neighbours may give evidence in her favour. She will not seek, at a distance of 200 miles from her home, the protection of an unknown tribunal. It is so clearly evident that it would be pointless to formulate further arguments on the matter.
Moreover, as I said at the outset, the other party, the husband, is thereby denied the opportunity or even the possibility of bringing his witnesses before the court. Were this amendment to be passed, any wife could desert her husband, travel all over the country and after a few years, the husband having then given up all hope of rebuilding his home, she could take legal proceedings against him in some place where he would be unable to send his witnesses, and where it would perhaps be impossible for him to appear before the said court. Therefore, he would be unable to enter a defence plea and he would then lose by default, which would mean the wangling by indirect means, of a divorce that could not have been obtained from a court sitting at the place of residence of both parties.
Mr. Speaker, to all intents and purposes, this brings into being a new jurisdiction. There are the jurisdiction ratione materiae and the jurisdiction ratione [DOT]personae.. It is an absolute 'right, recognized as well in the province of Quebec as in the others, that a person should be tried before the court of his domicile, and it is one of those rights which is most treasured by a citizen.
Mr. Speaker, I realize that the jurisdiction ratione personae must be respected and cannot be set aside by such an amendment.
Indeed, it is a very subtle amendment. It is said: this poor woman who has been deserted by her husband, why force her to incur expenses and compel her to return to the domicile where she lived with him? Let us

allow her to go somewhere else and she will merely apjfly for divorce in the court of her choice. Well, Mr. Speaker, this goes very far, inasmuch as to-day in the province of Quebec we have no divorce court, we have safeguarded this principle, thank God. Thanks to the efforts of our predecessors in this house civil courts determine the rights of the parties. Under this amendment, the women of the province of Quebec could go to another province where a divorce court has been set up, live there for at least two years and then institute proceedings and obtain a divorce which they could not obtain in the province of Quebec. Further, this would result in granting new jurisdiction to a court of another province, a jurisdiction which it did not have over a person from the province of Quebec and to which in our opinion it is not entitled over persons under the jurisdiction of the province of Quebec.
Besides, and this follows from what I have just said, our courts would be deprived of their jurisdiction, they would be prevented from dispensing civil law in our province. In Quebec it is provided that the husband or the wife may appear before the court of their place of domicile, where in many cases conjugal disputes are settled amicably and family life continues.
If we agreed to this amendment, we would encourage divorce and prevent our courts from exerting the beneficent influence they have wielded in the past. Moreover, this legislation affects private interests, rather than general interest and public order and I believe that in such a matter public interest must be the first consideration. This amendment, whose purpose is to enhance a private interest, tends to facilitate the application of the divorce law which, in my opinion, cannot be accepted in a Christian and well ordered society.
Divorce divides the family. It obviously dissociates husband and wife who will thereafter live apart. Moreover, the children must be considered; they are parted from father or mother and, when remarriage follows with its , consequent offspring, we behold incongruous multiple paternities, a state of things which should not exist in a Christian society.
I will go even further, Mr. Speaker, and contend that divorce also disorganizes the community. Family life is at the core of our Canadian society. No distinction is made between races, religious beliefs or other opinions. Here, in Canada, our community life is still based on the family unit which remains the cornerstone of our national structure.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.

Divorce


Eugène Marquis: We still count on the
family to ensure the survival of our Christian society, and our Canadian citizens, whatever their religious belief, are devoted to their family and want this social cell maintained in Canada. If we were to let divorce become easier to obtain family ties would become disrupted, paternal authority would be undermined and children would lose that love for their parents which the latter have instilled into them, and this would lead us inevitably and in a short time to atheism.
Mr. Speaker, sublime thoughts have been expressed in this house following the end of hostilities. Several members on both sides of the house have suffered personal losses; several have lost their sons, their relatives in battle. Why? To fight the forces of evil and to defend righteousness.
Right has emerged triumphant in this six-year struggle which unleashed the powers of evil against those of decency, and we may now look forward to an era of freedom and prosperity.
The forces of decency are vested in the family, they are based on love while those of evil are inspired by hatred. The ideology of our enemies rested on hatred while our own was founded on love.
We oppose divorce and roundabout means of promoting it because we favour a Christian society based on the principles of charity and love. If we want the forces of decency to develop, consolidate and flourish in our country, let us set aside this subtle little amendment which some want to insert in our laws. It is a trap which will end by allowing all Canadian citizens straightway to obtain a divorce wherever they may be. I feel convinced that even in provinces where divorce is recognized and where divorce courts are found, all well thinking people regret the existence of such anomalous conditions in our social legislation. I am sure the amendment will come to its natural end and it will not be necessary to add another chapter to this unfortunate legislation.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that I am concerned merely with the future of my fellow-citizens, those of my own race and of others as well.
(As a Canadian citizen, I yearn to see, all over the country, strong united families, where education, under the wise leadership of father and mother who are in full accord is directed to the thorough development of every potentiality and eveiy talent. Let these families remain united, yielding to the full extent of their powers, flourish, in a regulated order and we shall then enjoy liberty and happiness in our country.
(Text) Mr. ELPHEGE MARIER (Jacques-
Cartier): Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about this amendment to the Divorce Jurisdiction Act, 1930. The bill as presented seems very simple, but in my opinion it has some far-reaching consequences. The hon. member for Lake St. John-Roberval (Mr. Dion) has already dealt with the legal rights of the province of Quebec. If my information is correct, I understand that there are only two provinces in Canada without divorce courts, Quebec and Prince Edward Island. If this bill is passed the province of Quebec will be affected. A wife will be permitted to go to Ontario, reside there for two years, then apply to the courts of Ontario for a divorce and in that way escape the jurisdiction of the courts of Quebec the court of her domicile. At the same time her husband would not be given the same privilege.
I am against divorce on religious grounds and because of the evils, both moral and material, that spring from divorce. I do not intend to discuss this bill from that angle, but I do insist that it would be against the civil rights of the provinces. I should like to refer to section 92 of the British North America Act which determines the exclusive powers of the provinces.
(Translation): I shall quote three paragraphs of section 92 of the British North America Act which is entitled: "Exclusive powers of provincial legislatures":
12.	The solemnization of marriage in the province;
13.	Property and civil rights in the province.
14.	The administration of justice in the province, including the constitution, maintenance and organization of provincial courts.
Therefore, under the provisions of sub-section 14 of section 92 of the British North America Act, the province alone has the right to set up divorce courts. And in our province, it has not been deemed advisable so far to create such courts. If our province did not deem advisable to set up such courts, I do not see why a roundabout way would be resorted to in order to give certain citizens of the province the right to evade the jurisdiction of the court of their province by availing themselves of the rights and privileges granted in a neighbouring province. And this is exactly what would take place if the wife could avail herself of the court of a neighbouring province in order to exercise rights which her own province deny them.
In sub-section 12 of the British North America Act, reference is made to the solemnization of marriage. I have always understood that this paragraph reserves to the provinces the right to legislate on such solem-
Divorce

nization as well as to determine the rights of the husband and wife arising from such marriage. This is the reason why there are in the province of Quebec as well as in the other provinces certain laws which control the solemnization of marriage and its consequences. Here again, the proposed amendment would tend to destroy or modify the laws or the obligations which arise from the solemnization of marriage.
Now, sub-section 13, which grants exclusive powers to the provinces concerning property and civil rights in the province would be set aside by the proposed amendment. Indeed, the civil rights of the provinces include right over persons and right over property. To my mind, the right over persons would disappear or rather would be curtailed if a person domiciled in the province of Quebec could get away and after residing two years in another province, could obtain a divorce under conditions and according to laws which are different from those of the province where she is domiciled. Especially in the province of Quebec, the law which establishes the domicile of the wife at her husband's residence would be violated. And not only the law regarding domicile would be violated but also numerous other rights arising from marriage. In obtaining a divorce either in Ontario or in New-Brunswick or in Nova Scotia or in any other province, there would also be another disadvantage for the parties concerned for the court granting the divorce could not affect the rights arising from marriage or the obligations pertaining thereto. Indeed, in our province, the question of joint estate, which does not occur in other provinces, must be taken into account. Therefore, a court of another province could not, in granting a divorce, determine the respective rights of the interested parties and as, in Quebec, divorce is not recognized, they might find themselves in an embarrassing position. After securing a divorce in another province, a person enjoying certain rights in the common estate, would lose her rights on account of the change in its status, because the common estate is not recognized in this other province.
The same principle would apply to gifts and privileges often resulting from marriage and which exist also in other provinces. If the court granting divorce is unable to grant the civil rights enjoyed by the interested parties the clauses included in the marriage contract could not be taken into consideration on account of the divorce granted, because the said court could not deal, in its findings, with the assets of the consorts and furthermore,

no court of our province could settle the matter, as divorce is not recognized within its borders.
There is also the status of children. Sometimes, the marriage contract provides that children to be born will be entitled to certain gifts which could not be realized at the time of divorce because, I repeat, the province of Quebec would not recognize the divorce.
But the province of Quebec is not the only one concerned in this matter; in other provinces there are also numerous legislative measures relating to the assets of the consorts in case of separation or annulment of marriage. Several provinces, as I said, would be in the same position when having to determine the rights of spouses.
I need not elaborate further on the anomalous situation that would be created by an unconstitutional law. If the privilege of establishing civil rights belongs exclusively to the provinces, as it is clearly stated in section 92, I do not see how, through an amendment to the divorce act, an individual could be allowed to evade the laws of his province, provided he lived somewhere else for a certain period, while as a matter of fact his true domicile was there.
Therefore, from a constitutional standpoint, the bill should not become law. From the standpoint of provincial rights, and of the consequences which the passing of this amendment might entail in our province, it should not be enacted.
The time when we hear so much about union and brotherhood, speak of organizing to solve so many complex problems with which we are faced, to my mind, I say, such a time is ill-chosen for raising a question as important as that of divorce. A matter of this order might stir up animosity between certain provinces or sections of the country. We should not raise such an issue but instead tend to the serious problems submitted to our attention and which are far more essential to the future of our country that this amendment to the existing divorce legislation whose purpose is to render the decree more easily obtainable and is in the sole interest of a few people under particular circumstances. If there were no other means of redress I would agree that some amendment was needed to provide for the plan mentioned a ^hort while ago by my hon. colleague. The required means, however, are already in existence and will adequately take care of the few exceptional cases in our province where no divorce court is found. I am therefore opposed to this amendment and hope it will be defeated.

Divorce


Mr. BONA ARSENAULT (Boaaventure):: (Translation) Mr. Speaker, to indicate my opposition to the bill under consideration, I wish to add a few remarks to those already so brilliantly made by my colleague.
We, from Quebec, believe that the ties of marriage can only be broken by the natural death of the consorts. As long as both live, marriage remains indissoluble. Such is the fundamental principle enunciated in section 185 of the province of Quebec Civil Code. We, of Quebec, believe that the indissolubility of marriage is at the very foundation of the family, which, as was stated a few minutes ago, is the primary cell of society.
As Christians, we, of Quebec, believe that divorce is opposed to divine law and, as Canadians, we claim that it is in contradiction with natural law, in this sense that the indissolubility of marriage is directly connected with the best interests of society.
The real object of marriage is not only the raising of future generations, but also the protection and education of children.
For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I claim that we should find among the most indomitable enemies of divorce all those who profess to be Christians, all those who think in terms of society, all those who have at heart the lofty interests of the Canadian nation.
If we refer to the figures published in connection with divorce in Canada, we are appalled to realize to what an abyss we are sinking. And we understand that the time has come to alter our course in the right direction, to pull ourselves together, and the only way to accomplish this is to make it harder to obtain a divorce in our country.
In 1901 th'ere were only 661 divorces in Canada, for a population of 5,300,000; in 1911, 1,530 actions were taken and in 1921, the number had climbed to 7,401. Between 1911 and 1921, a period similar to the present one, inasmuch as it was marked by an armed conflict, the troublous times resulted in a five-fold increase in the number of divorces, which climbed from 1,500 to 7,401. In 1941, divorces numbered 14,032 in our country compared to 7,441 in 1931. This is an increase of practically 100 per cent. On the strength of these figures, unless we endeavour to curb this tendency, if the five-fold increase in the number of divorces holds for the period 1941 to 1951 as for that of 1911 to 1921, 70.000 homes will have been broken in Canada in the ten years previous to 1951.
Mr. Speaker, divorce is a national curse; in fact, it is national suicide. To-day every country in the wortd realizes how much divorce decreases the birth-rate and to what extent it constitutes not only a factor of family
disruption and social disorganization, but also a threat of extinction for the population of some countries. Quite recently, on September 27, the British government stated that the numerical strength and even the survival of the British nation were endangered by the increase in the number of divorces and by birth-control. In that white book, published in conformity with a procedure reserved for official statements of major importance, it is explicitly said that there is an ultimate danger, quite real although remote, that the British people may gradually disappear-and that statement is made by the British government itself. That blue book emphasizes that in 1919, for instance, Great Britain had about
16.000.	000 people under the age of twenty, while in 1939, twenty years after, she had only
14.000.	000. So much for England.
Let us see what happens to-day in godless Soviet Russia. In 1943, the government of Soviet Russia discarded the communist principle of coeducation and reestablished separate schools for boys and girls. Last year-I quote from an article published on July 10 by the newspaper Le Droit of Ottawa-the soviet government itself announced that they-
-had just taken new measures with a view to ensuring the morality and the survival of the Russian family, threatened in its very existence by the devastation of war and by the ravages, no less serious, of the anti-family policy forced upon the Russians during twenty-five years of communist administration.
I quote further:
The Soviet authorities make divorce more difficult to obtain.
If Russia has come to realize that after twenty-five years of communism she must make divorce more difficult to obtain it is high time that we should realize it in Canada. Again:
Russian couples only had to sign a form and appear for a few minutes before an official in order to obtain the dissolution of their marriage.
That is what we do not want in Canada. It is why I oppose the bill of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black). Let me quote in conclusion, a most eloquent excerpt from a paper read by Mr. Leon Mercier-Gouin, now a member of the Senate, before a social congress held in Montreal in 1923. Here are a few lines which will certainly not fail to impress you:
Divorce is a demoralizing factor and it further checks the birth rate.
If there are children, divorce deprives them of the care and moral education they have a right to expect from their parents, for the latter have irrevocably separated and perhaps remarried. Thus the unwanted child is unnaturally divided between father and mother. Separation as to bed and board is a sad evil, sometimes necessary; it is a cruel hardship for
War and Demobilization

a child, but not an iniquitous injustice lacking all possibility of readjustment. Divorce does grievous wrong to tiny tots who did not ask to be born. Their young hearts are withered by this blot which, like cancer, gnaws at their conscience and sensibilities. Divorce destroys the family and thus shatters at its very base the whole social structure.
I maintain that divorce is anti everything that matters: family, society, legislation, contractual obligations, Christianity and nationhood. That is why we oppose it irrevocably.


James Horace King: I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. member, but as the time allotted for the discussion of government measures has expired, the house must resume where it left off at six o'clock.




[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Ilsley that the house go into committee to consider a resolution to grant to His Majesty certain sums of money for the carrying out of measures deemed necessary or advisable in consequence of the war.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Speaker, when the house took recess at six o'clock I was endeavouring to explain what had been done with the report presented in 1944 to the Canadian Bar Association. I have just one further word on that to complete the matter. The motion that had been made contained three recommendations, which are found on page 52 of the report of the annual meeting. He then added:
I therefore move the three last-named recommendations. And as to the rest of the report I move that the report be tabled, received and discussed either here or by the executive committee, to implement what is therein contained.
There was considerable discussion, and finally Mr. James E. Day said this, which is found at the foot of page 59:
Let the committee continue and put the recommendations in concrete form, seventeen suggestions, let these be put in printed form, and let the whole matter of their consideration come up on Friday.
William Ross Macdonald: That, ladies and gentlemen, is the amendment.
The amendment was then put to the meeting and on a standing vote was declared lost.
The motion was put to the meeting and on a standing vote was declared carried.
The matter came up again at a meeting of the council of the Canadian Bar Association which was held on the last day of August, 1945. There was no meeting of the association itself, because it would have been 
contrary to the orders of the controller of transport to have held the meeting.
The report was again taken up and the chairman of the committee proceeded to make the following remarks:
Our committee has also given additional consideration to some of the topics of the main report, and we wish to submit the following for attention:
1.	Continuation of controls after the war. There appear to be many who believe that some measure of control, specially in relation to ceiling prices, should be had and continued for some time after the war as a transit and adjustment period policy. Otherwise prices might jump suddenly to extreme limits, and bring a chaotic situation.
2.	Should the necessary controls be continued under the War Measures Act?
It is expected by some, feared by others, that the federal government, for such controls as may appear necessary to maintain, will continue to rely on the authority of the War Measures Act.
Now that the war is over, such a course would raise a very serious problem of constitutional law, as to controlling civil and property rights which. are in relation to civil law, and fall normally, under the constitution within the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the provinces.
Authorities are cited to show that it is well established that circumstances, very serious in nature, and amounting to a national emergency, such as a great war or other similarly wide and calamitous circumstances, would justify the federal power, by legislation, adequately to control the liberties, civil rights and property in the provinces.
We then come to the recommendations which are as follows:
Your committee recommend that the proclamation declaring that the war no longer exists be issued as soon as the war with the enemy is really at an end according to the established principles of international law.
Let us make the distinction here between the war emergency itself, which is the fact of a state of war, and an economic emergency, which, though a consequence following the war, is not the war emergency. It may be an economic emergency. The calamity against which we have to protect the nation is not the war itself, or a consequential defeat of our arms, or the invasion by the enemy, but is an economic state of affairs that may be most serious, and that may, or may not be adequately coped with by the provinces. If the federal administration feel that, after the war, and in relation to such economic conditions of the country, a state of emergency exists, of a most serious character, and national in scope, let them face the issue directly and submit to parliament a new law affirming the existence or the apprehension and determining the exact nature of the new emergency.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I appreciate the "hear, hear" from the other side of the house. As a

War and Demobilization
matter of fact, the speech from the throne had been drafted before anything of this became public, and if the hon. members will refer to it as printed on page 8 of Hansard they will find the following:
It is the intention of the government to abolish war restrictions in progressive steps as rapidly as that can be accomplished without occasioning inflation or other economic disturbances. Such controls as are essential to the welfare of our people will be continued for as long as they are necessary.
You will be asked to approve a measure to extend certain specified emergency powers to meet emergency conditions in the period of reconstruction.
As a matter of fact, I have before me a bill with that intent, which was printed evidently before August 28, because the stamp from my office bears the date of August 28, and just as soon as there is an opportunity that bill will be introduced and parliament will be asked to take its responsibility, because it will be a considerable responsibility. It would be a considerable responsibility for anyone to take to sweep out with one fell stroke those controls which have been so effective in preventing inflation in this country. In making that statement I am not departing from principles which were enunciated by the leader of the Progressive Conservative party in a speech he made in Montreal on April 23, 1945, in which he said this:
In thus referring to our war-time controls I do not suggest that these have been bad, or that they were an unnecessary product of autocratic power. Their necessity must be as clear to you as it is to me; but I insist that in assessing their virtues we should think of those controls in terms of the job they were intended to do. If we do that, then I am sure you will not find it contradictory for me to say that existing controls cannot be dropped willy-nilly the instant the job of making war is done. Certainly we must be rid of them as soon as possible, but in some cases they will have to be unwound very carefully and slowly and there will have to be planning to accomplish the unwinding.
That is not my language; that is the opinion of the leader of the opposition; and we find ourselves in company with the privy council in the Fort Frances case in which the following is stated at page 706 of the report.
No authority other than the central government is in a position to deal with a problem which is essentially one of statesmanship. It may be that it has become clear that the crisis which arose is wholly at an end, and that there is no justification for the continued exercise of an exceptional interference which becomes ultra vires when it is no longer called for. In such a case the law as laid down for distribution of powers in the ruling instrument would have to be invoked.
The question of determining at what time it will be proper to put an end to the validity of orders made under the War Measures Act is a matter of statesmanship. We do not pretend that we are the only statesmen in this house. The intention of the government, as stated in the speech from the throne, is to ask all the statesmen in this house to take their responsibility as to the proper time for putting an end to these controls. The matter will be gone into quite fully when the bill comes before the house.
I do not want to take the time at this moment when we are dealing with an appropriation of money that is necessary for purposes directly connected with the war, to discuss the reasons for the continuation of controls which will have to be discussed when the bill announced in the speech from the throne comes properly before the house for consideration; but I would refer hon. members to the reference book on economic controls which was put before the members of the dominion-provincial conference. Once again this is a matter where emergency conditions enlarge the powers of the dominion at the expense of those normally exercised by provincial authorities. The reasons given or suggested for it being necessary to continue that state of the legislation for a time were summarized in this reference book compiled under the direction of the committee on economic controls, of which F. P. Varcoe was chairman and C. Stein, secretary. This book contains submissions from the wartime prices and trade board, the war industries control board and the Department of Labour. The purpose of this material is-
. . . to describe the situation which brought various war-time economic controls into being and to outline the kind of problems which probably will continue to exist in these fields during the transition period.
This summary contains some thirty pages of double column print, to show why some, thinking they were taking the position of statesmen, suggested that careful consideration ought to be given to the possible consequences of too rapidly proceeding with decontrol. The policy the government of Canada submitted to the representatives of the governments of the provinces in that regard is set out on page 9 of the proposals of the government of Canada, which were put before that conference. There hon. members will find a long statement of the methods which the dominion government proposed as being best suited to the progressive elimination of these controls.
Another question which was put and which quite logically follows this portion of my remarks is: have the defence of Canada regula-
War and Demobilization

tiona been repealed? Practically all the defence of Canada regulations which were of substance have been repealed by two orders in council which were published in the war orders and regulations. One was passed on August 16, the day after we heard of the intention of the Japanese government to surrender to the allied powers, and it did away with practically all those provisions of the defence of Canada regulations which interfered with the ordinary liberties of the individuals. The second was passed on September 14, 1945, and was published in the September 24 issue of war orders and regulations. It removed many of the other regulations, leaving subsisting practically only those dealing with protected places or areas, which were necessary because of very important works going on, as for instance at Chalk river, in plants belonging to the government. Other provisions were retained because of our international obligations with respect to the control of tonnage, and the provisions which give special authority for the placing of ships in harbours were also retained. It was felt necessary to retain those provisions for the safety of the men being brought back from overseas. They were passed subsequently to the list of orders in council which were tabled by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) at the opening of the session, which brought the tabling down to June 30, and I would ask leave to table those orders in council now.
Another question which arose and about which I am sure there is much unsatisfied curiosity in my own mind as well as in the minds of others is the date which will be fixed as that from which will run the two years for the refunding of the compulsory savings portion of the income tax, and the refundable portion of the excess profits tax. My understanding is that this date will be announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) in presenting his budget proposals. Likewise many of the previous controls which were found to be no longer absolutely necessary have been eliminated.
Is there anyone in this house who would have taken the responsibility, either on August 15 or on August 16, or on September 1 or on September 2, of saying the war was at an end, and that everything in our system of controls on which we depended to combat inflation would then come to an end? I do not think a single member of this house would have said at that time, or would say at this time, that it was proper to bring that system down without taking some means to substitute other authority for the maintenance of those controls. That is the manner in which the law officer has advised his colleagues; that
fMr. St. Laurent.]
is a matter the responsibility for which will be placed before this house as soon as it is possible to introduce and deal with the bill thus forecast in the speech from the throne.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, it would have been well if the minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), who is also Attorney General of Canada, had given this opinion on September 11, the day I raised this question here. Notwithstanding that he read from some correspondence, it is a legal opinion. Ever since confederation it has been the rule in this parliament that the Minister of Justice, who is also Attorney General of Canada, should not give legal opinions in this house, even when he is asked for them. That question has come up on many occasions. The rule I mention has been followed since about 1886, and there are good reasons for it. In this country the courts are subservient to the legislature. One of the principles I have always enunciated is this. The Minister of Justice appoints the judges. One of the cardinal principles of our constitution is that we must have impartial justice and a judiciary free from any interference on the part of the executive. That has been the reason for the rule I just mentioned.
I brought this matter to the attention of the house on September 11 when, in reference to this resolution, in view of the fact that the war was over, I asked if the government did not consider that the War Measures Act had been automatically repealed and annulled, that it had expired through the effluxion of time; and I still believe that is the correct view. At that time I was not brushed aside, as some newspapers said. I am not in the habit of being treated in that way, because I know the facts of the case. At that time the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) replied to me:
It is the opinion of the Minister of Justice that it is within the constitutional power of this parliament to pass this bill. Moreover, this bill, as I say, follows the precedent of the Demobilization Appropriation Act passed in June of 1919.
This war is totally different from the last one. Such an act as that passed in 1919 is not relevant in the house at the present time. I call the attention of hon. members to the statements made by the Canadian Bar Association, where they have given some opinions which the Minister of Finance has said were only matters of policy. I say they were not They were legal opinions on the whole question
Let us follow this to its logical conclusion In view of what the Minister of Justice said to-night, the whole control system is still in effect, despite the fact that the war is over. The war may be over in London and over in

War and Demobilization
Washington, but apparently it is not over here. They have taken action in Washington in connection with their controls. They have loosened them up, and have given large and small businessmen a chance. Let us follow their example.
Sometimes these controls need rationing. If they are continued large numbers of people will be summoned to law courts across this dominion. We know that many summonses have been issued already, and chiefly in the Toronto district. The charges and fines there seem to be about ten to one, so far as numbers are concerned, when compared with what they are in other cities. There is no equality of treatment at all. When these cases are before the courts the question will be raised whether this parliament has power, in view of the war being over, and the War Measures Act annulled, to follow the practice which it has followed of bringing in resolutions of this kind, followed by bills.
I referred to this matter the night war broke out in September, 1939. I referred to the very same principle which is now involved, and which has been discussed this evening by the Minister of Justice. I pointed out that when Great Britain is at war, Canada is at war, and that when Great Britain is no longer at war, Canada is no longer at war.
Then, on the matter of status, I say we were not at war, although war was declared on September 3, 1939. However, it was not until September 10 of that year that this House of Commons enacted legislation. On September 4 the Athenia was sunk, and I called attention of the house to the fact that we were bound by what had been, done, and were at war on September 3, 1939. As a result of that we found out afterwards that under our new system of status we had to wait until September 10, for seven days, and all that kind of thing, before Canada declared war.
All I am saying is this, that no matter what we say or do in this house, this matter will come up in the law courts of the country. It will come before the courts the very moment it is proposed after the war to enforce these controls. The jurisdiction of parliament will be challenged, so far as its legislation in this respect is concerned.
Fines will be imposed and1 appeals will be lodged. In my view they should be taken right to the supreme court; that is where this matter should go. Under the Supreme Court Act the government of the day, on recommendation of the attorney general, can recommend submission to the Supreme Court of Canada of points such as those raised by me
on September 11 and a few days ago in the speech of the very able hon.. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker).
In view of what has been said to-night by the Minister of Justice, surely a clear case has been made out, if there ever was a case made out for reference to the supreme court under the Supreme Court Act. If ever there was such a case, it is this one now before us. The whole question of the system of controls as they are to be permitted in Canada after the war is over should be looked into.
I shall refer to one or two further points, and then I shall have concluded. My first point has to do with paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the resolution now before us. We have seen the result of our system of controls in Canada. As I said the other day:
All kinds of bodies, over the head of parliament, are spending money like water. Every principle for which the British nation struggled in the old land since the seventeenth century has been surrendered to the political caucuses. Parliament itself, which came into being to ensure that taxes shall be voted only by those who have to pay them, has become the institution through which those who do not pay them impose them on others.
I want to emphasize to the committee that powers of legislation older even than the right of taxpayers to determine the national expenditure have been surrendered, and if we are to continue this sort of thing the power of parliament will be gone forever. Whole spheres of activity, involving the livelihood of every man, woman and child in this country, have been removed from the jurisdiction of the law and of parliament and reserved for the determination of tribunals, irresponsible, irremovable, governed by no control and subject to no appeal.
That is all I object to. If parliament is to be supreme we should observe its rights and privileges. Before going into committee we are told by the various ministers about the succes sof this system of control. In addition to that, some controllers are going across Canada making speeches about which, quite probably, the ministers know nothing. This is done over the head of parliament and while it is in session.
There was some legislation passed after the last war, when parliament was meeting, to require the submission of all these matters to the House of Commons. This has not been done. In addition to that, I contended at the time this war started, during the first ten days of the special session, that we did not need any proclamation or order in council; that war was on from September 3, 1939. We did not need any orders in council such as were passed by parliament on September 10, 1939. We did not need them, because when Great Britain is at war, Canada is at war, and when she is not, Canada is not.
War and Demobilization

I know it is in the public interest to have the removal of these government controls. There is no business, large or small, in Canada that is not suffering from them. Large business, wholesale business, retail business-all kinds of business have been suffering from these irksome controls.
I should like to draw to the attention of the house what has been done in the United States, because throughout the war it would seem that we followed Washington to a considerable extent. This pamphlet sets out the policy of the federal government in that country, and the measures taken by federal agencies. This booklet, which is issued monthly by the National City bank of New York city, in its September issue sets out what is being done at Washington. This is the action taken by the President of the United States on the advice of his officers, and particularly Mr. Snyder, director of the office of war mobilization and reconversion. It also contains suggestions by Mr. Krug, chairman of the war production board. These men occupy positions which would be the equivalent of positions in our Department of Munitions and Supply.
Perhaps I might say in passing, and before reading from the report, that our parliament might well follow what has been done at Washington in connection with the elimination of these controls and in respect of reconversion. In other countries the test of the ability to recover from a war and to return to a state of prosperity has been found in the capacity to produce goods and to supply them to the population. There is no other measuring stick than that found in the ability to produce, distribute and consume goods and services. If production is insufficient, then the distribution of money, whether in the form of international loans or relief, would be involved. Many industries do not have to reconvert at all, and those that do make their preparations well in advance. Industrial leaders throughout the United States generally know what they are doing and what they are going to do. They are moving forward, in a sense of public responsibility, and because they see vast markets awaiting their products.
Returning to the report of the National City bank, I find this, with respect to the removal of government controls, in the report of Mr. Snyder, approved in August by President Truman:
Finally, and perhaps most important of all, the policies of the federal government and the measures taken by the federal agencies imply in general that reliance for rapid reconversion is being placed upon the ingenuity and resourcefulness of business men themselves, and not upon schemes for government direction and control. Nothing was more to be feared, either ['Mr. Church.]
for the transition period or the longer future, than regulations subjecting every major decision of business to the approval of Washington, with the certain result of confusion, delay, mistakes and injustices. But the moves since the surrender have shown that the policy is to free business of interferences with production 

in some respects at once and in others gradually

and put it on its own. The first step was to cancel war contracts promptly, in order to cut the cost and stop the waste of war, reduce the inflation danger, free materials, machines and labour for peace time goods, and clear the decks for a fresh start.
In a short paragraph, the policy of the director at Washington is set out, and this was reported to the president on August 15. It is as follows:
Nor will we continue the manufacture of useless armaments for as much as one day to c ishion the shock. We will not manufacture a single shell, nor a single piece of equipment above absolute minimum military needs, for the purpose of reducing the shock of terminating war work. We will not keep a single soldier or sailor in uniform longer than he is needed by the army or navy, in order to hold down the totals of temporary unemployment. This is the policy laid down by the congress, wholeheartedly carried out by this administration, and backed by the American people.
And again:
The second step was to remove most of the war-time limitations on production and on the use of materials. Mr. Krug, chairman of the war production board, has moved rapidly, rescinding limitation orders except in the case of certain critically short items, and in general freeing the industries to go ahead without having, as the Truman committe report in 1944 said, "to go to Washington with hat in hand."
This man occupies somewhat the same position as our Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe), and this is what he said:
It is necessary to get rid of regulations and production limitations as quickly as possible. They^ automatically put ceilings on initiative, imagination and r'-esourcefulness, the very qualities the country will need most if we are to have a resilient and rapidly expanding economy after the defeat of Japan.
The danger confronting us, as I see it, is that we will overlook the natural resilience of the economy-the capacity of manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers to readapt themselves to changed conditions and hence quickly to utilize the resources released from munitions production. If we were to attempt in Washington to see that every manufacturer, wholesaler or retailer got his exact share of released manpower or materials, we should be lost in a myriad of rules and regulations. We should get in the way of reconversion rather than speed it. -
And again:
As long as the policies of government are in harmony with these principles, the energies, abilities and experience of millions of business men will be at work, each on his own problems, to get factories retooled and speed production of civilian goods. No other forces that could be exerted in the situation could possibly be as effective.

War and Demobilization
And again:
The allegation that there has been a "lack of planning" does not stand analysis. Probably there has never been a time when planning, at the level where it counts most, has been as widespread and as ably done.
And further down:
The overwhelming majority of the American people, however, believe that detailed regulation of business in peace time would be wholly impracticable and disastrous in its consequences upon production and employment.
If we are to avoid widespread unemployment the government must release some of these controls and leave large and small businesses free to carry on. I notice in the newspapers that estimates are being made of unemployment. One made by the president of the C.I.O. in the United States is as high as 10,000,000. The same predictions were made at the end of the last war. I notice it is estimated that there will be 500,000 unemployed in Canada. These are rot, and some restraint should prevent the circulation of such predictions. I believe, with the experience gained in the war, the reconversion of industry in Canada will be carried on more rapidly than was the case in the last war. If private business is allowed to function free of control, as is the case at Washington reconversion will be much shorter.
If there is to be any danger of the suffering which occurred in this country after the last war during the first winter occurring now that this war is over, the government should be ready to look after those who may suffer because of lack of shelter, food or fuel.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to detain the house at any great length, but there are one or two things I should like to say. One point was mentioned in the debate and another deals in a general way with the war appropriation. First, I should like to refer to the statement made this afternoon by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell). I do not want the hon. member to feel that I am criticizing him except to say that I think the statement he made this afternoon was unwise, no matter how fundamentally true he may consider it to be.
Because of the gravity of the international situation, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) left the country while parliament was in session. I do not believe we should say anything here that will add to the difficulties of the situation. We all must feel disturbed about the general international situation today. The hon. member for Macleod said that a Christian democracy could not cooperate with a totalitarian state, and then he went on to make it quite clear to which country
he was referring. His statement sums up to this: Canada, which I assume is a Christian democracy, Great Britain, the United States and perhaps a number of other countries cannot cooperate with the Soviet Union.
I might pause here to say that if there is anyone in this country whom the people who set themselves as the friends of the Soviet union hate, it is myself. Consequently I cannot be accused of appeasing the Soviet Union. The implication in the statement of the hon. member is that we cannot cooperate. If we cannot cooperate, then there is noncooperation. If there is non-cooperation, that in my opinion, will lead inevitably to another conflict. We have no recourse but to cooperate. Cooperating is not the same as appeasing.
I think we all admired the minister for external affairs of Australia, the Hon. II. V. Evatt, for setting out, at both San Francisco and London, what he considers to be the rights of the Australian nation, of the Canadian nation and of many other small nations. But I want to go a little farther than that and point out that we found ways to cooperate in war. It was through the cooperation of the Soviet Union with the Christian democracies, if you want to use that word-I have known of Christian totalitarianism-that we were able to defeat our enemies and achieve peace, at least peace in its negative form, namely, the absence of war. Should we say now that we cannot cooperate and bring that peace to the full fruition that we expected? I believe that we should at least try. We certainly should not do anything at the present time that would interfere with that desired end.
I concede to my hoh. friend the right to criticize to his heart's content in this free parliament, but while democracy gives freedom, it does something else; it puts the onus of what we say upon ourselves; we must consider what effect our words will have on our country's affairs. I am afraid that in dealing with this, perhaps the last war appropriation, we may run into some difficulty. I have no fear that the appropriation as placed before parliament will not carry, but I believe that a good deal of harm has already been done by the public press and by various individuals both in the government and in different groups in the house in urging that the war is over now and that we should get rid of controls at once. I should like to tell hon. members again that the war is not over and will not be over until we have achieved those things for which we went to war. Those things were: freedom from fear; freedom from war itself; freedom from want. Those things have not been achieved in their full measure or achieved
War and Demobilization

so that we know of a certainty that we have them, and in my opinion those are the things for which the young men of Canada fought and died. Either they died for those things or we lied to them. Let me say again that those things will not have been achieved until we have restored the countries we have liberated. We gave our young men in liberation of those countries; we poured into them our wealth, and now there is a danger that we are going to quibble over the small amount that it will take to help those people to restore their strength and build up their own economy so that they can get on their feet once more and perhaps pay us back, if not in material things, at least in the return to this earth of peace and order. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I -would just warn the house and, if I may presume to do so, the country that our help is needed now just as much as it has been during the last five years.
There was a point raised this afternoon by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) in connection with orders in council, and the discussion was carried on from another angle by the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent). I am now an old member of this house, and I have observed over the years how it conducts its business. When I heard the Minister of Justice in his eloquent peroration just a few moments ago I was almost prepared to call myself not an old member of the house but an elder statesman, but I decided that that probably would be going over the verge of modesty and so I will not say it.
I have listened to statements that we have government by order in council, that parliament has ceased to function, and similar phrases. I would just like to tell the members that we must do one of two things. We must either stream-line the procedure of this house, or the government will have no alternative than to legislate by order in council. In the British parliament at Westminster, where the business moves much faster than it does here because they have improved their procedure, they are beginning to realize that there must be a further stream-lining of procedure. We here are faced with the alternative of parliament becoming simply a word factory if we do not stream-line the procedure.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: You are to blame for the word "factory" quite a bit.


Angus MacInnis: I admit that, and I am not blaming anyone any more than I blame myself. But I am caught as it were, like the rest of us, in a sort of machine-


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Lots of us are not in that boat.


Angus MacInnis: *-so long as we have the present procedure, and I do not think I would be doing my duty either to this house or to my constituents or to the country if I just let my hon. friend talk and out of my wisdom did not reply.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Perhaps what I say is more sensible than what you say.


Angus MacInnis: That is a matter of judgment, and I would not doubt at all that my hon. friend's judgment is as good as mine. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think we should give thought to organizing the procedure of this house so that when the government does stop legislating by order in council it may legislate through an improved procedure. That is all I have to say, and I hope that I have not taken up too much time.
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead)" Mr. Speaker, we have all listened with interest and with respect to the words that have recently been pronounced by the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent). He has told us many things which we know. He has failed to tell us that which we want to know; that is, when the government is going to declare the war at an end. The government is now acting under legislation which permits it to govern by orders in council. The words of the enabling statute are: "by reason of the existence of a real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection." The house is interested in knowing when the government is going to declare under section 6 of the War Measures Act that the war is at an end.
The reason for this query is not mere vulgar curiosity. It is one that affects every member of the house; it is one that affects the entire population. If government is to be carried on by order in council, if parliament is to be denied its elementary function until it suits some hon. gentleman to say that the war is at an end, it is as well that we should know that is part of government policy.
We are told on the highest authority that emergencies may arise that justify the transfer to the dominion of powers which ordinarily reside in the provinces. The reason and the only reason under the statute which is relied upon to enact these orders in council is the "existence of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection." I submit, Mr. Speaker, that there is no existing war or any apprehension of war, invasion or insurrection, and that in consequence the right of the government to enact by order in council legislation which affects the whole country and which stultifies and annihilates parliament has ceased.

War and Demobilization
The Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) has relied upon the Fort Frances case, and he has told parliament that there is a case in which valid orders in council were enacted after the cessation of hostilities, and that in consequence it is a precedent for the conduct of the government. I have read, somewhat hurriedly I must admit, the decision of the privy council in that case. I do not find that the question now at issue was raised directly. I do find that the law lord who rendered the judgment in that case did say that it was not the function of a court of justice to say, under section 6 of the War Measures Act, when the war had come to an end; I quote now from page 706 of "Law Reports, Appeal Cases (1923)," in which Lord Haldane said:
It may be that it has become clear that the eiisis which arose is wholly at an end and that there is no justification for the continued exercise of an exceptional interference which becomes ultra vires when it is no longer called for. In such a case the law as laid down for distribution of powers in the ruling instrument would have to be invoked. But very clear evidence that the crisis had wholly passed away would be required to justify the judiciary, even when the question raised was one of ultra vires which it had to decide, in overruling the decision of the government that exceptional measures were still requisite.
Therefore, if I have correctly interpreted the words of Lord Haldane, he went no farther than to say that it was not the function of the courts to say when the war was at an end. It was the duty of the government to say when the war was at an end. It is because we believe that that is the duty of the government, that we ask the government to state definitely what everybody knows to be a fact, namely, that there is no longer any reason to fear the "existence of a real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection."
There may be dozens of crises. There may be an economic crisis; there may be a financial crisis, there may be a social crisis. Such crises may be reasons to introduce other legislation. I would say to the Minister of Justice that it is not very consoling to hon. gentlemen who have come here to take a part, and a full part, in the enactment of legislation, to be told day after day that somebody or some body other than parliament is legislating for the country.
The effort which the opposition is putting forth is toward a return to normal conditions. I am willing to admit with the Minister of Justice that it might have been imprudent to abolish all controls at one fell swoop. There is the widest divergence between such an act and the course that wisdom would suggest and what the law requires, namely
that legislation be brought down stating that an emergency other than the existence of war, real or apprehended, or of invasion or insurrection, is to be relied upon for the enactment of further orders in council. I do not think extravagant language makes a case any better than it really is, but does anybody in the country doubt for a moment that the war is at an end? Does anybody question that hostilities have ceased? Under the statute the government was authorized to rule by order in council only so long as there was an existing war. If other emergencies are to be met, let it be stated in a bill submitted to the house what the emergency is; I know of no tribunal more competent and more willing to pass upon that issue than parliament. Parliament after all had a function. It has lost it. For the last six years it has been a mere looker-on. Until a declaration comes from the administration that the war is at an end, and until new legislation is enacted warranting further orders in council, I submit with great deference that the government is acting outside the law, and that there is nothing in the decision of the privy council in the Fort Frances case which runs counter to that statement. Every day we are told that orders in council are passed, which in the normal course of events could only be enacted by parliament. Nothing is more tenacious than the lust for power. Once a man has tasted the blood which enables him to make his wish law to a great number, he becomes inebriated by the draught and finds it most difficult to recede into the position which is properly his. I suggest to hon. members opposite that they should cease making orders in council under the War Measures Act. I make the suggestion with full knowledge of the difficulties of government at the present time. Everybody, whether he sits to the right or to the left of the Speaker, knows that government is now a difficult task, and in so far as I am able to interpret the sentiment of those who sit to your left. Mr. Speaker, they realize the difficulties of government and they do not wish to resort to any petty means to improve their political position. But that being admitted, they feel that it is their duty to insist that the rights of parliament be restored to parliament; that the electorate of Canada, in so far as it has found representation in the house, be allowed to express itself, and that when a measure is about to be enacted it should be subjected to the criticism, and to the betterment which inevitably follows the criticism of parliament.
That sums up my commentary on the statement of the Minister of Justice. His statement was clear but it did not answer the ques-
War and Demobilization

tion. His statement was truthful, but it did not give any enlightenment as to the time that the government intends to rehabilitate parliament and do away with the method of government which is one of the ills of war, to which we bowed as a necessity of war, and from which we wish to be relieved now that the war is over.


Mr. H. G. ARCHIBALD (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about the matter of controls. This subject has always interested me more from the point of view of historical processes than anything else. I have listened to the various speakers. For instance, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) mentioned the other evening that-


William Ross Macdonald: I would inform the hon. member that he cannot refer to debates which have previously taken place during the present session.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It has been mentioned here at various times that Manchesterian Liberalism would solve the problem, and to-night we have the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) advancing the position that he did not know when these controls would be lifted, but that they were necessary at the present time. Controls are the very opposite of Manchesterian Liberalism. Manchesterian Liberalism is the right to buy and sell freely before the law. Now we have the state entering into the very keynote of production; government orders regulating trade. The tendency is to increase rather than decrease as the years go by.
The opposition is criticizing the government for maintaining these controls. Yet the former leader of that party, the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, was the first in this country "to advance a planned economy from the point of view of the old-line parties. The process that we see will end up with the state ultimately becoming the sole capitalist. That is advanced by such men as Frederic Engels and Karl Marx. It is bound to come about. The necessity for state control came through the war. The government recognizes that a crisis is still with us and this crisis will continue with us as the years go by; therefore we are going to see the absolute continuation of government control within private industry.
It is interesting to me to see what is happening to the social groupings because of those price controls. For example, I have received letters from small meat-packing concerns claiming that under the quota system they cannot get into the export market, and they cannot sell sufficient on the home' market to make it pay because they cannot get the meat.

This means that they are dissolved, that they are being wiped out and that the big meatpacking concerns are taking the whole business. The individual commodity is losing all 7alue, and more and more commodities have to be exported in order to make any profit whatsoever. Therefore on the home market we are facing a scarcity and we have the quota system as it is applied in the meat markets. It is applied there by government law,, but actually it is in effect to-day in nearly all industry because they cannot get the material. Clothing stores are under the quota system to all intents and purposes. They cannot sell enough to maintain their position; therefore they go out of business. Consequently we are seeing the liquidation of the small trading class. It is interesting to note the effects that this is having on the political arena. Such groups as can be seen to the left, the C.C.F. and the Social Credit party, are an expression of protest from the small middle blass, such as the small working class. This tendency will go on and we shall gain more and more support from that small middle class. Therefore at the present time the government is cutting the ground from under its feet because it is wiping out the very support by which it maintains itself. From the point of view of a socialist I would say, more power to the government, because it is hoisting itself with its own petard.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to make any address such as "Praise God and pass the ammunition" or to enter into any discussion regarding controls. But while the government- is considering the questions which have been put to them to-day, I should like to raise one point. I have no desire whatever to be provocative or anything but constructive.
We have just come to the victorious conclusion of campaigns in northwest Europe and in the Pacific. Perhaps I use the word "campaigns" advisedly, because I must admit I am a little confused as to whether or not the war is over. One of the principal lessons we have learned from those victorious campaigns is that it has been essential that there should be coordinated effort between the navies, armies and air forces of the allied nations. A few weeks ago we had the privilege of seeing the models and films of "Mulberry", which was the development of .the ports for landing on the coast of France on V-day. I think everyone who saw and studied those models must have been convinced that a vast amount of skilful and detailed planning -had been carried out beforehand in order to ensure the success of the men who were fighting on the

War and Demobilization
beaches, because without that forethought no amount of gallantry would have been of any avail. From the earliest inception of these plans soldiers, sailors and airmen worked together as one staff, closeted in rooms, considering every detail of the parts which those three services should play when the great day came. I may say equally that this practice was followed in the great amphibian operations which were carried out in the Pacific theatte of war.
I submit that we are in the planning stage now when we come to consider the estimates of the three defence services, the planning stage in order that we may preserve the hard-won peace during the next two or three years. I know that is referred to as an interim period; I am not suggesting that the planning is going any farther than this interim period, but I suggest that this is an important period and quite possibly a dangerous one. Therefore I would plead that we do not lose sight of the great lesson we learned during the war, that there must be proper cooperation between the navy, the army and the air force as a prerequisite to any success. I do not believe the ministers of the government and their executive officers have been working in water-tight compartments during the preparation of the estimates they are about to submit for this interim period. I am sure they must have progressed beyond those unhappy days when service estimates were prepared behind closed doors, with the greatest secrecy, because one service was competing against the others for what defence funds the government of the day were prepared to make available.
I do not wish to retard the business of this house. On the contrary I believe that the estimates of the services would be considered more efficiently and dealt with more expeditiously if, before we take up these estimates in committee, some member of the government would give us the results of their deliberations and tell us the over-all picture, so that before we consider each individual service estimate we can see what is the defensive policy of the government and make sure that the three services are coordinated. Otherwise we shall be arguing in the dark, discussing this service and that service without having an over-all picture.
Mr. DOUGLAS G. ROSS (St. Paul's): In the beginning of my remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I congratulate you upon the honour which has been bestowed upon you in your appointment to the position you now hold.
At a time like this, after a period during which conditions have been so disturbed, and when we find the Big Five having a great deal of difficulty, I think we should consider for a few moments what should be the position of Canada. My ancestors, like those of many others in this house, came to this country years ago. People of many nationalities came to Canada, and they came here because of the British traditions which are followed in this country. They wanted to be free; and when you read the history of Canada you find that all our institutions are founded on the freedom of man and on democracy, based on British traditions. For more than a year Britain stood alone against the whole of Europe. No country helped her except the nations of the commonwealth; and, thank God, Canada was one of those nations. I think it is now about time we supported her in the difficult position in which she finds herself to-day. Everything we have that is good, everything that means freedom, comes to us from those traditions which we have had handed down to us and for which our forefathers shed their blood. They are not new; they are old, the foundation of democracy as we have it to-day, and I think the least we can do is to give Great Britain our support in these difficult times.
The world to-day depends on Great Britain and the United States, a country which has followed our traditions. Let us support Great Britain as one of the members of the Big Five. Let us see to it that we support Great Britain and the United States in their fight for freedom.


John Bracken: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the Minister of Finance explained the reasons why he is now bringing forward a proposal to ask for SI,365 million-


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, just on a point of order, this is a rather important point of order, as the hon. member has already spoken in this debate.


William Ross Macdonald: On Friday the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) did speak. He can speak again only with the unanimous consent of the house.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: By consent of the house.


Mr. POULIOT:: Give him a chance.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection, with the unanimous consent, but-


John Bracken: If there is objection to my proceeding I will sit down right now. But I explained when I spoke the other day

Demobilization-Naval Services
that I was giving way to the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), who had been called away. I could not say it at the time, but the fact was that he had been called away on account of the death of his father on the preceding day. But I do not propose to go on if there is any objection from anybody in this house.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to unanimous consent; but I must firmly insist that a speaker in this house has no right to speak a second time in debate, without the unanimous consent of the house. I never have heard of that rule being broken in the twenty years I have been in parliament, except by unanimous consent.


William Ross Macdonald: I think that is the rule. Of course, in this case, we shall be going into committee, and the leader of the opposition would have an opportunity to speak then.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Unanimous consent.


Gordon Graydon: You will surely not cut him off!


Jean-François Pouliot: Go ahead.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE FOR NAVAL SERVICES

Gordon Graydon: That is about the worst I have seen.


James Arthur Ross: Pretty small onions.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I did not refuse unanimous consent.


Gordon Graydon: You could not have thought, surely, or you would not have said that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


John Bracken: Go ahead and make your statement.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding):: Shall the item carry?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Before the Minister of
National Defence (Mr. Abbott) begins, I wish to make my position very clear in this matter.


James Arthur Ross: You did.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think it is exceedingly important that no one in this house be allowed to speak, as of right, a second time in debate. I have no objection whatsoever to the hon. member's being given unanimous consent, and I so stated.


Gordon Graydon: Not the first time, you didn't.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, he did.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Just a minute. I raised the point as to whether anybody in this house should speak a second time in a debate. And I stated, when someone said "by unanimous consent," that I had no objection to the hon. member's speaking with unanimous consent. I wish to have that made clear, because it is not a matter about which the leader of the opposition should express indignation. That would be entirely unjustified. It is a matter of adherence to a very important rule in this house, the rule which provides that no one has a right to speak a second time in debate, with Mr. Speaker in the chair, except with unanimous consent. But I had no objection to the giving of unanimous consent.


John Bracken: Mr. Chairman, since permission has been given the Minister of Finance to make a statement, I might be permitted to say a few words. On Friday, after he spoke, I said only two things. I asked for permission to have the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) proceed, because I knew what the house did not know, namely, that he had been called home because of the death of his father on the previous day; knowing, too, that he would take a prominent part on behalf of this party in this debate.
The only other thing I said was to offer support of the victory loan proposal made by the Minister of Finance. Let me say this other thing, that on purely technical grounds, no doubt the minister and the government are correct, but on grounds of substantial justice they are wrong.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member was not stopped from proceeding, because it was made clear to him that he had unanimous consent of the house to proceed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, it was. I will not let the impression be given that he was stopped from speaking in that debate. When he talks about grounds of substantial justice he is using language which is entirely unwarranted.
The contents of the speech he made last Friday afternoon are not in issue. The question is whether he made a speech at all or not. I think it is important that the point be made clegr. Let us suppose that it is not. Let us suppose that the point had not been raised at all, and that in a future debate in the house some hon. member rises and tries to make a
t

Demobilization-Naval Services
second speech. He may be stopped, and immediately he would say that one rule is being applied to the leader of the opposition and another rule being applied to private members. That would be the first thing that would be said.
If the rules of this house are to be upheld, and especially in a ruling of this kind-and it is a most important ruling-it is my duty as Acting Prime Minister to raise that point, particularly when I coupled with it the clear indication and statement that I had no objection to the hon. member's proceeding, because I said I had no objection to unanimous consent being given. I wish to make that clear, because I am surprised that this matter is being treated in this somewhat emotional manner by the opposition. It is just a simple point of observing the rules of order and decorum in this house.
So far as justice is concerned, the hon. member now has an opportunity to make any speech he wishes. He will have that chance, and he had a chance a few minutes ago.


An hon. MEMBER:: No, he did not.


James Lorimer Ilsley: But he refused to take it. He had it, by unanimous consent of the house.


James Arthur Ross: He did not.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker did not sit down, and he did not give the hon. member a chance to rise.


William Henry Golding: Order.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker did not sit down.


William Henry Golding: The business before the committee is this vote of $1,365 million. Shall the item carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


James Arthur Ross: Steam-roller.


William Henry Golding: Just a minute; I would ask the hon. member for Souris to withdraw that statement, please.


Gordon Graydon: Nothing wrong with
"steam-roller".


James Arthur Ross: I did not know there was anything wrong with that. I read the remarks which appeared in Hansard for Friday afternoon, where my leader made a few observations in which he said that he was giving way to the hon. member for Vancouver South, who had then been called home because of the death of his father. Then he said a few words about the victory loan which the Prime Minister was launching at a future
date, and then sat down. I challenge any hon. member in this house to read what was said on Friday afternoon, and then to interpret it in any other way than that the leader of the opposition was giving way to the hon. member for Vancouver South, and that he would speak again on the resolution stage. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) who had moved that the house go into committee said-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. CLEAVER:: Why did he not speak before?


James Arthur Ross: Where is the point of order? Who has the floor now?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


James Arthur Ross: I do not have to withdraw anything for the hon. member for Hal-ton (Mr. Cleaver).


Hughes Cleaver: The Chair is asking you to withdraw. Are you going to?


James Arthur Ross: What is the remark the hon. gentleman just made?


Hughes Cleaver: The Chair has asked the hon. member to withdraw an objectionable remark.


James Arthur Ross: What have you to do with it. I will bow to the ruling of the Chair at any time. I have no desire whatever to be discourteous in any debate in this chamber, whether the Speaker is in the chair or whether we are in committee with the Chairman in the chair. I will bow to the ruling that is given at any time.


An hon. MEMBER:: Even when it is wrong.


James Arthur Ross: Yes, even though it may be wrong. I would like hon. members to read what appears on Hansard and judge whether it was becoming for the leader of the government to object at this stage as he has. I bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, if I have said anything unbecoming to the dignity of this parliament.


Mr. BROOKS:: I should like to call attention to what the leader of the opposition said at that time. He said:
I am sure that the house has listened with a great deal of interest-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I am speaking on a point
of order. I continue:
-to what the minister has had to say. It is not my intention to speak at this time.
The leader of the opposition did not speak at that time. He gave way to the hon. member for Vancouver South. I think the mistake
Demobilization-Naval Services

that was made to-night was that the Speaker put the wrong motion. I believe it was the intention of hon. members on the other side to give unanimous consent and I think they expected that the Speaker would put that motion. But the Speaker put the other motion and thus the leader of the opposition could not speak.


@Acting Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: I would point out to hon. members that the incident is now closed and the leader of the opposition has an opportunity to present his point of view in regard to this matter.


John Bracken: You may be sure you
will hear it. Now that the house with its rules has put us into committee of the whole we propose to hear what the government has to say in justification of these expenditures. I suggest with all deference that it is the responsibility of the government to give that statement now.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Chairman, let me say
at the outset that I had a certain personal interest in hoping that the house would give unanimous consent to the leader of the opposition, because frankly I am reluctant to commence my statement with respect to the navy, which I propose to do, at almost twenty minutes to eleven o'clock.


John Bracken: I am not responsible
for that.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am quite ready to do
it, but as I say I would have preferred to start at a time when I could deliver my statement all in one piece, as it were. However, I shall go as far as I can this evening, and the committee can have the deferred pleasure of listening to the rest of my statement at some later date.
It has been the practice in past years during the war to commence the statement with respect to the various service departments with a brief operational summary, and I should like to follow that practice to-night. This is probably the last occasion on which a service minister will make a report on operational matters. The last report of this kind was made by my predecessor, the Hon. Mr. Macdonald, on April 3 which, as the committee will realize now, was not very far from V-E day.
From the beginning of April on the Canadian navy continued its primary function of convoy duty on the north Atlantic, and this was continued until after all danger of German submarines was over. As the committee will recall, two of the U-boats surrendered to our forces, one off Nova Scotia 
and one off Newfoundland. One was brought into Saint John and the other to Shelburne. Mine-sweeping operations were continued in the channel up to very recently, but our minesweepers have now been withdrawn from that duty and are on their way back to Canada.
In addition, during the past four or five months ships of the Canadian navy have been engaged in ferrying operations. Six old river-class destroyers have been employed between the United Kingdom and Canada and between Newfoundland and Canada. In addition, a number of our frigates have assisted in transporting Canadian service men from Newfoundland to Quebec. The anti-aircraft cruiser Prince Robert was in Sydney at the time of the Japanese surrender. She was then and had been for some time operating with the British Pacific fleet under the command of Sir Bruce Fraser. She was able to proceed and did proceed to Hong Kong with the units of that fleet to accept the surrender of that port, at the same time carrying badly needed supplies for our prisoners who were there. She is now at Manila, refueling, still under the command of the commander in chief of the British Pacific fleet. Our latest information is that she will return shortly to Esquimalt, bringing with her a number of prisoners of war. I cannot say definitely when she will be there, but it will probably be in three or four weeks time, according to the latest information we have.
The cruiser Uganda, as the committee knows, was serving with the British Pacific fleet for several months. She went out early in January and participated in several actions, taking part in the bombardment of Shaki'himo island and Dublon island and in the engagements off Okinawa. She returned to Canada a few months ago to enable those of her personnel who had not volunteered for Pacific service to be replaced by others. In the circumstances, it turned out that she got back to Canada just about the time of the Japanese surrender.
Our second cruiser, the Ontario, was commissioned in April. After her working out in the Mediterranean she proceeded to the far east, arriving about a month or six weeks ago. At that time she proceeded to Hong Kong where she is at the present time. She has been and will continue for the immediate future under the command of Admiral Fraser, with the British Pacific fleet.
I feel that I should not leave this summary of operational matters without referring to two incidents which do not relate directly to operations but which have been much in the public eye during the last three or four months.
I refer particularly to the disturbances at Halifax on V-E day and to the explosion

Demobilization-Naval Services
which took place later on in the naval magazine in Bedford Basin. I have no particular comment to make on the V-E day disturbances. As I said in the statement which I issued after the findings of the royal commission had been made known, no one could do other than regret those disturbances, but I am sure that all Canadians will remember that many of the naval ratings who took part in those disturbances were the same men who had earned their country's gratitude for their courage and endurance in the long and arduous Atlantic campaign. The government appointed, as the committee knows, Mr. Justice Ivellock a royal commissioner to inquire into the causes of that disturbance. He made his report, which has been tabled in the house, and I have no particular comment to offer upon it. He found in substance that the naval command had not done all that it should have done and that the discipline of the navy in Halifax was not perhaps all that it should have been. But those of us who served in the last war know that one's emotions on the day of victory are likely to run fairly high and that if a thing of that sort is not checked in the early stages it is apt to run to extremes, and that I am afraid is what happened in Halifax.
The findings of the royal commissioner were that the causes were those for which the navy should be held responsible, and the government accepted financial responsibility for the loss to Halifax merchants and residents caused by the disturbances. Personally I hope that it is sufficiently remote in time that the people of the country will realize that there were extenuating circumstances and that the high reputation which the men of the navy have justly earned during six years of war will not be imperiled as a result of the unfortunate incidents of that one day.
The explosion in the Bedford magazine- both of these unfortunate incidents took place shortly after I had been appointed minister- coming as it did so close after the V-E day disturbance, must have made the people of Halifax regret that they were living in a naval port. The consequences of this explosion so far as damage to property was concerned were rather extensive, but fortunately the loss of life was slight. There was only one man killed. He was a naval rating who had been a watchman on the jetty on which the initial fire apparently took place. He was killed, but there was no other loss of life.
Immediately after the explosion a naval court of inquiry was set up, and when the report of that inquiry was received I gave a statement to the press, since the house was not sitting at the time, summarizing the findings. At the same time, with the collaboration of my colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), a committee of explosive experts was appointed, headed by Lieutenant-Colonel Ogilvie, charged with the responsibility of investigating the arrangements at the magazine, of inquiring into the design and location of the present buildings, and of reviewing the circumstances and conditions leading up to the explosion. That committee visited Halifax shortly after the explosion took place. I asked them first to make a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether in their opinion the steps which were being taken to clean up the magazine area and to dispose of damaged ammunition and the like were being properly taken and were satisfactory. I am glad to say that they reported that in their opinion the steps which were being taken to clear up the danger area and to remove the damaged ammunition were completely satisfactory, and they complimented highly the officers in charge of that work. The committee has now returned to Halifax and is carrying on the main purpose of its inquiry, namely, to inquire into the design and arrangements of the magazine itself and to report whether or not any changes should be made in those arrangements to ensure so far as humanly possible that there would be no recurrence of such an explosion.
In addition to these measures Rear Admiral Brodeur was appointed inspector general of naval ordnance and has been charged with the duty and responsibility of examining naval magazines throughout the country and reporting as to their sufficiency, and in addition reporting on the quantities and methods of stowage of naval ammunition.
I mention those points because in view of the unfortunate explosion in the Bedford magazine I thought that perhaps the people who may live near other magazines may feel that the design or arrangements are not all they should be, and I wanted to make sure so far as possible that every precaution is taken to see that they are. So much for the operations and activities of the navy since the report was made by my predecessor on the 3rd of April last.
On the question of operations may I say that early in the war it was felt that attention should be paid to the matter of making the story of the navy permanently available to the Canadian public. Accordingly, in 1941 a fulltime naval historian was appointed to collect material and' to write an official history of the navy.
Present plans envisage three volumes. The first volume will cover the period from 1909 to 1939. The second volume will deal with the

Demobilization-Naval Services
shore side of the navy after 1939, with particular emphasis on the work of getting the ships to sea properly manned, armed, and supplied and of maintaining them there. The third volume will be devoted to operations and it may be that some of the photographs produced in the .navy's photographic section will be used to illustrate the text.
At the time the last report on naval affairs was made to the house by my predecessor on April 3, 1945, the service had reached the peak of its expansion in personnel. It then had some 95,000 men and women on active service both afloat and ashore. Within a period of little more than three months from the time that report was made, both Germany and Japan had surrendered and the need for maintaining the war-time strength of the Royal Canadian Navy was over. Recruiting and training for war were abandoned. The problems of demobilization, rehabilitation and readjustment took their place. It required almost six years to increase the Canadian naval strength fifty-fold. It is expected that by March 31, 1946, the personnel in the service will have been reduced to about 10,000, and that number will include the members of the permanent force supplemented by members of the reserves who engage for service during a two-year period.
The navy's plans for participation in the Japanese war called for the employment afloat of some 13,500 men, plus a reserve pool of some 3,500. Actually, some 38,000 had volunteered for Pacific duty. Of the remaining
57,000	in the service on V-E day, May 7, some would have been required for continuing commitments elsewhere than in the Pacific; the balance were to be discharged.
By mid-August, however, Japan had surrendered and partial demobilization gave way to a policy of general demobilization, based, as in the other services, on the principle of " first in, first out." This principle applies generally but the service must of course reserve the right to retain certain few key men essential to the orderly demobilization and disposal of surplus ships and establishments. In common with the other services, some exceptions to the general rule are necessary to expedite discharges on compassionate grounds, the discharge of students returning to their studies, of farmers, of ex-prisoners of war and the like.
On September 26, more than 19,000 personnel had been discharged from the navy, and almost 22,000 were on leave awaiting discharge, representing in all close to one-half of the total strength as it stood on V-E day. Within the next four months an average of

10.000	should go out each month, and by March 31 next the size of the service in men should be down to approximately 10,000.
Recruiting for the Women's Royal Canadian Naval Service was discontinued early this year. Demobilization of the women's service has been proceeding for some time. Since April 1 of this year, approximately
1.000	W.R.C.N.S. officers and ratings have been demobilized. As of August 31, the total strength of the group was 5,424. Some 50 per cent of this strength will be required until the end of 1945 principally for work connected with demobilization. I should say here, that the work of the Women's Royal Canadian Naval Service in connection with the demobilization organization has proved to be most valuable to the service. By the end of the present fiscal year, however, all W.R.C.N.S. should be demobilized.
The authorized strength of the permanent Royal Canadian navy is 771 officers and 8,003 ratings. The actual strength is 534 officers and 3,383 ratings. It is now proposed to supplement this permanent force by the addition of volunteers from the reserve now on active service who will engage for a two-year period. In due course, it is expected that permanent transfers from the reserves, new enlistments and cadet entries from the Royal Canadian Naval College will supply the men required for the force
The committee may be interested in an outline of the discharge procedure followed by the navy. A man designated for demobilization is drafted from his ship or establishment to a discharge transit centre. The main discharge transit centres are at Halifax, N.S., and Esquimalt, B.C., although there are certain other small centres elsewhere. At the discharge transit centre he undergoes a complete physical examination, including X-ray; blood test; teeth inspection, et cetera. If medical care is required, the necessary arrangements are made with the Department of Veterans Affairs. Gear and clothing on loan is turned in; service papers and records put in order; leave due is authorized and transportation to the naval division nearest his home is arranged.
At the naval division, upon completion of leave, the discharge routine is concluded. All back pay is received; civilian ration books, national registration cards, discharge certificate and war service badge are issued. Rehabilitation grant and plain clothes gratuity are paid and final medical check is made. The application for war service gratuity is completed and if the dischargee lives outside the point where the division is located, he is provided with transportation to his home. Re-

Demobilization-Naval Services
habilitation officers and employment counsellors are provided at the discharge transit centre and at naval divisions and are available for advice and help with reference to schooling, employment, references to the reemployment officers of selective service and to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
I turn now from the subject of men to the subject of ships. A very large percentage of the ships in Canada's navy and of the equipment in those ships was produced in Canada by Canadian workmen of Canadian materials. With .the exception of the Tribal destroyer building programme which was in progress in Halifax on V-E day, all major warship construction for the Canadian account had been completed. There were a few orders outstanding for auxiliary vessels when Germany surrendered, and these were cancelled immediately.
Before sending out ships to the Pacific war we had to equip them for conditions to be encountered in the tropical waiters there. Considerable readjustment was necessary for these vessels which had been serving in cold weather of the north Atlantic. Arrangements were accordingly made to "tropicalize" them.
Upon the surrender of Japan this work was stopped. The effect of this action was to reduce public expenditures but it will of course curtail employment in shipyards which have done great service in the cause of the war at sea.
The Tribal destroyer building programme has not been interrupted. On September 14, H.M.C.S. Micmac, the first Canadian-built destroyer, was accepted by the navy at Halifax. Two more Tribals will be completed in 1946 and the fourth should be available in 1947. All these Tribal destroyers will be of value to Canada's post-war fleet and it is consistent with the government's policy to complete the programme.
At the time of Germany's surrender last May, Canada had the fourth largest fleet actively engaged in the cause of the united nations. In six years there had been a sixtyfold increase in its size, and this increase was a modem record. The fleet on V-E day included some 374 fighting units and over 566 auxiliary craft. Twenty-four Canadian ships of war had been lost up to V-E day, but on the other hand, the ships of Canada's fleet destroyed or assisted in the destruction of seventy-five enemy surface and submarine vessels and in the damaging of forty-three others.
At no time during the European war was there a surplus of naval craft available to the united nations. Canada did all she could to
help supply this great need. Early in the war 47696-45
we decided to build naval craft, and we turned our hand to the type of ship which would be of most value for the work which we felt we could do best. That work was convoy, and the naval craft required was the escort ship.
We began with the building of single screw corvettes which proved their value in the emergency. Our shipyards later produced larger escort vessels, notably the frigate. Both corvette and the frigate are in the category of relatively small specialized naval vessels. They proved their worth as the figures on convoys show, but many of them were pretty well worn out when the war ended. Escort craft are not the type of ship which could be retained as the main component of a naval force.
Gradually the Canadian navy commissioned larger warships and at the end of the German war we possessed cruisers, carriers and destroyers as well as escort vessels.
The plans of the Royal Canadian Navy for the Japanese war called for the operation of a modern force of some sixty warships. In this number were to be included two carriers, two cruisers, one anti-aircraft cruiser, at least twelve destroyers, and about forty frigates. It was proposed that the remaining warships of the fleet, with the exception of a few training ships, some ships for patrol on Canada's west coast and the necessary auxiliaries and harbour craft, were to be paid off.
It is now little more than a month since Japan capitulated and the process of paying off ships has developed rapidly. To date 178 ships of war have been de-stored and laid up. These include destroyers, corvettes, minesweepers, converted yachts and motor patrol vessels. In the neighbourhood of 100' auxiliaries and harbour craft have been removed from service. It was originally expected that the navy could dispose of an average of one major and one minor ship of war per day. In point of fact the rate achieved has been three major craft and two minor craft per day.
The end of hostilities has called for the closing down of many bases where there has been a very high level of employment maintained during the war. I am aware that local business interests and local labour groups will be affected by this policy. The committee will realize, however, that it cannot be otherwise. The navy's size will be considerably curtailed and, accordingly, the requirements for the services which these bases provided in war time will no longer exist.
At Halifax, the main fleet base on the east coast will be operated. So, too, will H.M. Canadian dockyard on a scale necessary for the

Questions

requirements of the base there. The main fleet base on the west coast will be at Esquimalt,
B.C., and the scale of its operations will be governed by requirements as they exist from time to time. The principal ammunition depots of the service will be at Renous, N.B., and at Kamloops, B.C. Naval service headquarters will remain in Ottawa. No policy has yet been formulated with reference to the future use of the building Which now houses naval headquarters.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Eleven o'clock.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It would take me about five or ten minutes to finish. I am in the hands of the committee.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: It is eleven o'clock.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, October 3, 1945.