[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):	Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the house of the composition of the Canadian delegation to the preparatory commission of the united nations organization, which will meet in London on November 23.

United Nations-Preparatory Commission
Following the pattern adopted for the delegation to the San Francisco conference-and I think I can say that it is felt on both sides of the house that this was a very successful pattern-the government has decided to appoint a delegation representative of both houses of parliament and of both sides of this house. The chairman of the delegation will be Mr. L. D. Wilgress, Canadian Ambassador in Moscow, who attended the San Francisco conference as an alternate delegate. The parliamentary members of the delegation will be the Hon. A. K. Hugessen, from the senate; the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Winkler); the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), who was a delegate at San Francisco; the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Picard), and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). These six gentlemen will be the Canadian delegates. The list of advisers to the delegation will be announced later.
The charter of the united nations was unanimously approved by both houses of parliament, and we are naturally anxious to ensure continued general support from all Canadians in taking the further steps which are necessary to bring the united nations organization into active operation. The work to be done by the preparatory commission is not so dramatic as that which was accomplished at San Francisco. It is, nevertheless, of great importance towards ensuring the smooth and efficient operation of the general assembly, the security council, the social and economic council, the secretariat and the other parts of the united nations organization. During September and October the executive committee of the preparatory commission has been very busily occupied in London preparing recommendations for the consideration of the full commission at its forthcoming session. These recommendations deal with a great variety of subjects, many of them of a technical character. Canada has been represented on the executive committee by the Hon. W. F. A. Turgeon, Canadian Ambassador in Brussels, with assistants from the Department of External Affairs.
It is hoped that the preparatory commission will complete its work in about three weeks, and that the first session of the general assembly of the united nations may be convened shortly after the New Year. The present intention is that this session of the assembly should be divided into two parts. The first part would be concerned with the adoption of regulations placed before it by the preparatory commission, elections to the various other organizations of the united nations, the appointment of the secretary-general, the provision of the necessary means
of financing and cognate matters relating to organization. The plan is that the assembly would then adjourn so that the security council, the social and economic council and the secretary-general could establish themselves in action and the assembly would then meet for the second part of its first session after an interval of some months, in order to discharge the high functions vested in it by the charter.
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I think most sections of the house will commend the government for the broad scope of the delegation that it is sending to this preparatory conference. I should like to ask the minister one question: can he say when this delegation is likely to leave, and how long it is likely to be away?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The first meeting is scheduled for November 23, and from inquiries we have made there will not be a convenient ship sailing later than Monday which would get the delegates there in time, so it is being suggested that they travel by air. That would enable them to leave about the 19th or 20th in order to be in London a day or two before the opening of the sessions; and the indications we have so far are that the sessions of this preliminary conference might last as long as three weeks.


Mr. CHURCH:: I should like to ask the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs if he will kindly convey to the house the object or purpose of the delegation appointed to go overseas. Is it for the purpose of recovering some of the spoils of war, and if so, what is it? We have these deputations on everything travelling all over the seven seas.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The object of the trip is to attend the meeting of the preparatory commission of the united nations organization, the agreement with respect to which was tabled as an annex to the charter of the united nations and approved by this house a few days ago.


Thomas Langton Church: I suggest that it would be better that such delegations stay at home if we want Canada to have any share in the peace terms.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	What properties or assets, the ownership and control of which was vested in the crown, as set out in the report issued by the Depart-
Questions

ment of Munitions and Supply on government-financed expansion of industrial capacity in Canada as at December 31, 1944, have been sold or disposed of in any way?
2.	To whom was each such property or asset sold,. and at what price?
3.	Which of the above sales were arranged and/or consummated (a) by War Assets Corporation; (b) by the minister or the Department of Munitions and Supply?


Mr. HOWE:: With regard to this question, I have stated before that it is almost impossible to give an answer which would be satisfactory to the hon. member. I would point out that the committee on war expenditures has now been established and has announced its intention of examining matters affecting War Assets Corporation. I would suggest to my hon. friend that he obtain his answer in the committee, when officers will be there subject to cross-examination. I am sure that under that arrangement the results will be much more satisfactory.


Mr. KNOWLES:: Since I am a member of that committee I am sure I shall be able to get the information there. With that understanding, I shall be glad to allow the question to be dropped.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Dropped.


Mr. GRAYDON:: May I ask the Minister of Munitions and Supply if this is to be taken as a precedent, that no further questions are to be asked on the order paper with respect to war assets?


Clarence Decatur Howe: 1 am not laying that down as a principle. There are many questions, factual questions, about iwar assets that can be answered in a way which will give information to the house; but this question is of a type that refers to a situation which has changed a great deal since it was put on the order paper; an answer given to-dlay would not be complete a week from to-day, and it is the kind of question which can be much better answered in committee. I think that applies also to questions 2, 3 and 5 on to-day's order paper.


Mr. FRASER:: That is not right.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think you had better leave that to the hon. member who asks the question. If my hon. friend wants to put a question on the order paper we will consider an answer to that.


Gordon Graydon: I am pleased to have a suggestion from the minister as to who should speak on this matter; but it is not a matter which affects one member of the house, it affects the privileges of every hon. member and the rights of those of us who want to ask questions.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: 1.	Up to September 15, 1945, how many military (a) jeeps; (b) cars; (c) trucks;
(d)	machines of other kinds, have been sold by the government to farmers or other private users in each of the nine provinces of Canada?
2.	How many military buildings, such as barracks buildings, training school buildings, have been so sold, up to September 15, 1945?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I suggest to the hon. member who placed this question on the order paper that the information he desires could be better obtained through the committee which will examine war assets officials. I will ask him to withdraw it. If he declines to withdraw it we will attempt to answer it. I had hoped that, once the committee was established as a ready source of information, it would not be necessary' to take the time of War Assets Corporation, which has a very small staff, to answer complicated questions of this kind.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Inasmuch as the
minister indicates that I can obtain the information from another source I shall be pleased to withdraw the question,


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: 1.	What was the total value of the buildings, equipment, supplies, and other materials, (a) sold; (b) exchanged; (c) loaned; (d) leased;
(e)	otherwise disposed of, by the Minister of Munitions and Supply as of August 31, 1945, under the Surplus Crown Assets Act?
2.	What is the total amount received by the government for the materials referred to in question 1 ?
3.	Who are the members of the crown assets allocation committee?
4.	What is the total amount allowed to-manufacturing and other firms in double depreciation in the reconversion plans to date?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am going to make the same request of the hon. member as I did with respect to the two previous motions, and for the same reason.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: I think that parts, 2,. 3 and 4 of this question might be answered. I am quite willing to wait for the answer to part 1 until the information is presented to the committee, if I have the assurance that it will be.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, yes; it will be.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We will see to that.


James Horace King: Part 1 dropped. Part 2?
Some lion. MEMBERS: Dropped.


James Horace King: Dropped.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, there must be a difference between withdrawing and. dropping.

Questions


Mr. MACKENZIE:: "Withdraw" is all right.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We shall be glad to answer parts 3 and 4. As I understand it, we are discussing question No. 3. The hon. member has agreed to drop parts 1 and 2 if he can obtain answers to parts 3 and 4; is that correct?


George Hugh Castleden: Yes.


James Horace King: Sections 3 and 4 question No. 3 stand.


SURPLUS WAR ASSETS-SOKEL, QUE.
Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North):: 1.	Have any ships been sold by War Assets Corporation at Sorel, Quebec?
2.	If so, what was the capital cost of such ships, by type?
3.	What was the price received for these ships, by type?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The situation with regard! to ships changes almost every day. I would make the same request of the hon. member who placed this question on the order paper. I am sure he will have more satisfaction in obtaining that information in the committee,


Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg Nbrth):: From the point of view of accounting procedure I do not see that it should be so very difficult to answer this question. There is not much to do. But in view of the fact that War Assets Corporation is so short of staff, and because we do not want to give additional work to the employees who are left, I am quite willing to withdraw the question. I can assure the minister I shall get satisfaction.	.


MUTUAL AID-SUPPLIES NOT LOADED ON SHIPS ON V-E AND V-J DAYS
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	(a) On V-E day and (b) on V-J day, were there any mutual aid supplies which had not been loaded on ships?
2.	If so, (a) did the government repossess such supplies, (b) when?
3.	(a) What were such supplies; (b) what countries were notified that the government had repossessed such supplies; (c) for how long did the government retain its title to such supplies? .


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	(a) Yes; (b) yes.
2.	(a and b) Goods which had not been loaded aboard a vessel as at midnight, September 1, were retained as the property of the Canadian government, and countries receiving goods after that date were requested to pay for them, and received them on condition that they undertake to do so. An exception was made in the case of certain minesweepers which
Canada had explicitly undertaken in advance to provide as mutual aid to the U.S.S.R. notwithstanding the end of hostilities.
3.	(a) Inventories of a large number of supplies which had been ordered by the mutual aid board were on hand, in transit, in storage, and in the course of manufacture at the conclusion of hostilities. Detailed inventories have not yet been compiled but some indication of the nature of the goods in question can be obtained by noting, in the reports of the mutual aid board, the types of goods being supplied as mutual aid. It is known however, that large numbers of aircraft, automotive equipment and spares, ordnance equipment, unfinished ships, and radio equipment were included, as well as food stuffs.
(b)	All countries receiving mutual aid were notified or told that following the end of hostilities they would be expected to pay for supplies received from Canada. In general, mutual aid supplies were not transferred until loaded on ship; consequently repossession of supplies already transferred was confined to certain items being held in depots in Canada for the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom authorities have been notified that Canada regards these supplies as having reverted to Canadian ownership in accordance with the mutual aid agreement.
(c)	Title to the supplies in question has been retained until favourable opportunities for sale of them have occurred. Items of civilian types, such as food stuffs, were generally sold immediately to the countries for which they had been destined as mutual aid. Items remaining as surplus are being declared as such and turned over to War Assets Corporation for disposal,


SMALL ARMS LIMITED
Mr. DANIEL:: 1.	How many buildings comprise the plant of Small Arms Limited?
2.	What are the dimensions, type and cost of construction of each?
3.	What is the total cost of machinery and equipment used in the said plant?
4.	In each of the years 1943, 1944 and 1945, what proportion of the total stock of Small Arms Limited was owned by other shareholders than the crown?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Nine.
2.	Building No. 1-Main plant with office building attached. Dimensions-main plant 540' x 300' with wing 425' x 150', office building 138' x 49' (2 storeys) with wing 94' x 54' (one storey). Type of construction-plant

Questions
-brick and steel, saw-tooth design with concrete floor, office-brick and steel, flat roof, concrete floor. Cost-$982,780.63.
Building No. 2-Heat treat. Dimensions- 160' x 80'. Type-brick and steel, flat roof, concrete floor. Cost-$21,031.Id.
Building No. 3-Gatehouse. Dimensions- 35' x IS'. Tjrpe-frame construction, flat roof,-wood floor. Cost-$2,500.
Building No. 4-Range. Dimensions-166' x 121' .with wing 100' x 50'. Type-brick and steel, flat roof, partial concrete floor. Cost- $111,063.39.
Building No. 5-Storage warehouse. Dimensions-150' x 80'.	Type-timber truss,
sheet metal siding, flat roof, cinder floor. Cost -$21202.19.
Building No. 6-Cafeteria. Dimensions- 104' x 100'. Mill type construction in timber, wooden siding, flat roof, concrete floor. Cost- $47,030.09.
Building No. 7-Storage warehouse. Dimen-sions-150' x 80'. Type-timber truss, sheet metal siding, flat roof, floor part plank, part concrete. Cost-$21,316.10.
Building No. 8-Personnel building. Dimensions-120' x 80'. Mill type construction in timber, wooden siding, flat roof, concrete floor. Cost-$44,143.13.
Building No. 9-Guardhouse. Dimensions- 35' x 15'. Type-frame construction, flat roof, wooden floor. Cost-$4,153.54.
3.	$6,344,159.34.
4.	No stock is owned by shareholders other than the crpwn. The directors of the company hold only qualifying shares which are endorsed by them and deposited with the Minister of Munitions and Supply.


SHOE MANUFACTURERS-SUBSIDIES
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	Have any shoe manufacturers, since January 1, 1945, made payments to Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation as refunds on account of subsidies paid to said manufacturers by the corporation?
2.	If so, what firms have made such refunds; in what amounts; for what period?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	Yes.
2.	In accordance with government policy as stated from time to time by the Minister of Finance in the House of Commons, it is not considered to be in the public interest to provide information with respect to subsidies paid by Commodity Prices Stabilization Corpora-

tion Ltd., to individual concerns. (Ref. House of Commons Debates, No. 47, dated April 24, 1944, page 2280.)


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. IRVINE:: 1.	Is unemployment insurance being denied to applicants on the ground that they have not accepted employment at wages less than that received when unemployment terminated?
2.	If so, what action does the government propose to take in the matter?


Mr. MARTIN:: 1.	In accordance with section 31 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940, after a reasonable time we are obligated to refer people to suitable employment at a fair rate of wages established for the particular class of work.
2.	The Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940. provides the machinery for an appeal of the decision of an insurance officer to a court of referees and in some cases to the umpire appointed under that act. Courts of referees have been established in fifty-five centres in Canada and other courts are being established as required.


VETERANS' LAND ACT-LINCOLN AND WELLAND COUNTIES
Mr. LOCKHART:: 1.	To date has any land been purchased in Lincoln and Welland counties under the Veterans' Land Act?
2.	If so, (a) from whom was the land purchased; (b) what was the purchase price of each piece of land; (c) what acreage was purchased ?


Mr. TUCKER:: Return at November 2, 1945:
1. Yes.
2. (a)	(b)	(OVendor	Price paid	AcreageWelland Counity	Phillips, Doris 	5Nigh, Ira G	,. 5,500 00	95Carl, Mrs. Lillian 	.. 675 00	22-50Knoll, Franklin C	.. 2,000 00	19-50Knoll, Franklin C	.. 1.600 00	32-75Minor, Cora E	.. 2,000 00	25Ont. Dept, of Highways	.. 2,644 42	15-10Ont. Dept, of Highways	.. 5,550 30	30Ont. Dept, of Highways	.. 5222 87	30Tyler, Thos. N. and Lucy 1,100 00	10Hodgson, J. A	.. 8,500 00	64McDonald, Thos. W. ..	.. 7,000 00	48Sharpe, Mrs. Bertha ...	.. 4,700 00	1
Questions
(a)	(b)	(c)
Vendor	Price paid Acreage
Lincoln County
German, Wm. John	
4,300	00	10Welstead, Katheryn	L.	... 8,800	00	25Welstead, G. A	12,500	00	50Smith, E. D. & Sons	Ltd.	.14,000	00	69-59Jansen, Peter	A	
4,000	00	2-50Battal, Charles P	
3,984	00	0-23
Pinder, Wellington and
Olive	 6,000	00	7
Jarvis, T. D. and Edna
Mary	 4,800	00	0-50


WARTIME HOUSING-LONDON, ONT.
Mr. MANROSS:: 1.	From whom was land purchased just northeast of London, Ontario, for Wartime Housing?
2.	How many acres?
3.	What was the price paid?


Walter Adam Tucker: The hon. member who asked this question has requested that it be dropped.
Question dropped.


DRY DOCKS-SUBSIDIES
Mr. ROSE:: 1.	Is financial assistance given by the government to companies in the building and maintenance of all dry docks?
2.	If so, under what act are such subsidies given ?
3.	What amount, if any, has been paid to the company operating the dry dock at Saint John, New Brunswick?


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: 1.	and 2. Yes, if privately owned and comply with the requirements of the Dry Dock Subsidies Act, chapter 191, R.S.C. 1927.
3.	As provided in clause 7(1) of the above Act and as voted by parliament annually, subsidies totalling $5,769,173.89 have been paid to date on the Saint John Dry Dock.


COURTAULDS, CORNWALL, SUBSIDIES
Mr. ROSE:: 1.	Has any subsidy been paid by the government to Courtaulds Limited, Cornwall?
2.	If so, for what purpose?
3.	What was the amount of annual subsidy for the years, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1,	2 and 3. In accordance -with government policy as stated from time to time by the Minister of Finance in the House of Commons, it is not considered to be in the public interest to provide information with respect to subsidies paid by Commodity Prices Stabiliza-47696-121
tion Corporation Ltd. to individual concerns. (Ref. House of Commons debates No. 47, dated April 24, 1944, page 2280).
jehovah's witnesses


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Are Jehovah's Witnesses who are farmers still being detained in alternative service camps?
2.	If so, for what reason?


Mr. MARTIN:: 1.	Yes, but only in those cases where they continue to refuse to accept employment in the ordinary way and comply with the alternative service regulations. The opportunity to accept other work is kept continuously before men who are in the camps.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
WARTIME HOUSING LIMITED-MEN'S AND women's HOSTELS


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What was the cost price of mattresses, beds, springs, dressing benches, bedside tables, bought by the Wartime Housing Limited for projects No. 3 and No. 4, men's and women's hostels?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Kingston Women's Hostel-project No. 3
Purchase price of-
Institutional beds and
springs, each.... $7 128 f.o.b. factory
Mattresses, each.... 5 40 f.o.b.factory Dressing tables, each 4 85 f.o.b. Toronto
Dressing benches, each	 3 25 f.o.b. Toronto
Project No. 4-Peterborough men's centre Purchase price of-
Institutional beds and
springs, each.... $7 128 f.Ojb. factory
Mattresses, each.... 4 86 f.ob. factory Bedside tables, each 5 238 f.o.b. factory Dressing benches....	None


ROYAL CANADIAN MINT-OVERAGES-GOLD, SILVER, ETC.
Mr. ADAMSON:: What was the value of overages at the Royal Canadian Mint in the fiscal years 1942, 1943, 1944, for, (a) gold; (b) silver; (c) platinum group (metals) ?


Mr. ILSLEY:: Gain in Refining
(a) Gold
Year ended	Statutory Value
March 31	Ozs. fine ($20.671834)
1942	
4,748-848	$98,167	401943	
4,315-232	89,203	761944	
1,924-264	39,778	07
Questions as Orders for Returns

(b)	Silver	Value
(at present
Year ended	ceiling price
March 31	Ozs. fine of 40c. oz. fine)
1942	
56,041-96	822,416	781943	
46,479-59	18,591	841944	
46,955-29	18,782	12(c)	Nil.	*


COST OP SELLING AN OUNCE OF GOLD
Agar Rodney Adamson: What is the handling cost to the Royal 1 Canadian Mint of selling an ounce of gold?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Expenses incurred by the Department of Finance in selling gold in New York aggregate 15.9434 cents (Canadian), the ounce fine.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. FAIR:: 1.	Under the soldier settlement board scheme, was it the practice of the administration to obtain a mortgage on property or chattels owned by veterans at the time they purchased land from the soldier settlement board?
2.	If so, how many mortgages were obtained on, (a) land or other real estate, (b) chattels during the period 1919 to 1943, both years inclusive?
3.	What was the assessed value of, (a) land or other real estate; (b) chattels, at the time security was taken?
4.	During the period 1919 to 1943, inclusive, how many foreclosures of the above mentioned properties or chattels were made?
5.	What was the value of the claims under which foreclosure was made?
6.	How many of those mortgages are still held by the board?
7.	What is the original assessed value of the property and chattels involved?
8.	Are veterans of the present war who purchase land under the Veterans' Land Act required to give the board security on real estate or chattels they already own? If so, why?


DAVIDSON DUNTON
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Who is Davidson Dunton recently appointed chairman of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
2.	What experience had he had in the radio field?
3.	Who recommended his appointment?
4.	What is his salary and other allowances, if any?
5.	Is he a returned soldier?
6.	If so, where did he serve and for how long a period?
7.	Has he held any other government post? If so; what are the particulars?
8.	What has been paid him each year since employment for travelling, living and other allowances?
9.	Who first authorized his employment?


Mr. MARTIN:: Order for return.


Gordon Graydon: Why is this an order for return?


Mr. HOMUTH:: He cannot answer that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It involves several departments, and it takes some considerable time to get the information. I think it is the most convenient way of dealing with this question.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Stanley Howard Knowles: For a copy of any and all communications between the chief investigator of the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation Limited and Mr. C. C. Cardoza, since August 1, 1945, with reference to any investigation of Federal Shoe Manufacturing Company Limited, Gagnon, Lachapelle and Company, Limited, and any other footwear investigations conducted by Mr. Cardoza.


James Lorimer Ilsley: With regard to this motion, I would point out to the house that it calls for the production of reports from an investigator to his superior officer-a chief investigator-and for the same reasons on account of which reports of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to their superiors, and officials of that character throughout the whole public service, have always been regarded as privileged, I must take the position that these reports are privileged and that it is not in the public interest for them to be produced. It would be impossible to obtain satisfactory reports from officials and investigators in the public service to their superiors if such reports were subject to production in the House of Commons. The reports would speedily lose a very large part of their value. This correspondence is intra-departmental correspondence, is of a confidential character, is privileged, and it is not in the public interest that it be produced. I must therefore say on behalf of the government that we cannot agree to this motion passing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the basis of what I firmly believe to be in the public interest, I take . issue with the position stated by the minister. I think these documents should be produced.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: It seems to me that this is establishing-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On a point of order, this is not debatable.


Mr. COLDWELL:: All right; then we shall
vote.


Gordon Graydon: It certainly is not intradepartmental.

Motions jor Papers


James Horace King: : Notices of motions for
production of papers are not debatable. If	
the motion is opposed I must put the question.


Major James William Coldwell: All right. Question.	
The house divided on the motion (Mr.	
Knowles) which was negatived on the fol-	
lowing division:	YEAS Messrs:
Adamson	Jaques
Archibald	Johnston
Argue	Kidd
Ashby	Knight
Aylesworth	Knowles
Barrett	Kuhl
Bentley	Lennard
Black (Cumberland)	Low
Black (Yukon)	McCuaig
Blackmore	McCullough
Blair	(Assiniboia)
Boucher	Macdonnell
Bowerman	(Muskoka-Ontario)
Bradshaw	Maelnnis
Bruce	McKay
Campbell	McMaster
Cardiff	MacNicol
Case	Marshall
Casselman	Matthews
Castleden	(Kootenay East)
Charlton	Menary
Church	Merritt
C-oekeram	Moore
Coldwell	Murphy
Coyle	Pearkes
Daniel	Probe
Desmond	Quelch
Diefenbaker	Robinson (Bruce)
Dorion	Rose
Drope	Rowe
Fair	Senn
Ferguson	Smith (Calgary West)
Fleming	Stanfield
Fraser	Stephenson
Fulton	Stewart
Gillis	(Winnipeg North)
Graydon	Stokes
Green	Thatcher
Hackett	Townley-Smith
Hansell	Tustin
Harkness	Webb
Hazen	White (Hastings-
Henderson	Peterborough)
Herridge	White
Hlynka	(Middlesex East)
Hodgson	Wright
Homuth	Wylie
Irvine Jaenicke	Zaplitny-91.
 NAYS Messrs:
Abbott	Huntingdon)
Arsenault	Blanchette
Baker	Boivin
Beaudoin	Bonnier
Beaudry	Bourget
Belzile	Bradette
Benidickson	Breithaupt
Bertrand (Laurier)	Bridges
Bertrand (Prescott)	Brown
Black (Chateauguay-47696-1211	* Chevrier
Clark	MeCubbm
Cleaver	McCulloch (Pictou)
Cloutier	Macdonald
Cote (Matapedia-	(Brantford City)
Matane)	Macdonald (Halifax)
Cote (St. Johns-	McDonald
Iberville-Napierville)	(Parry Sound)
Cote (Verdun) Cruiekshank	McDonald (Pontiac) McGarry
Dechene	Mclvor
Denis	Mackenzie
Dion (Lake St. John-	MacKinnon
Roberval)	MacLean
Dubois	McNaught
Emmerson	Maloney
Farquhar	Martin
Fournier (Hull)	Matthews (Brandon)
Fournier (Maison-	Maybank
neuve-Rosemont)	May hew
Gauthier (Portneuf)	Michaud
Gibson	Mullins
(Comox-Alberni)	Mutch
Gibson	Picard
(Hamilton West)	Pinard
Gingues	Raymond (Wright)
Glen	Reid
Golding	Richard (Gloucester)
Gour (Russell)	Richard (Ottawa East)
Gourd (Chapleau)	Rinfret
Halle	Robinson
Harris (Grey-Buuce)	(Simcoe East)
Healy	Ross (Hamilton East)
Howe	St. Laurent
Ilsley	Sinclair (Ontario)
Isnor	Sinclair
Jean	(Vancouver North)
Jutras	Sinnott
Kirk	Smith (York North)
LaCroix	Stuart (Charlotte)
Lafontaine	Tucker
Langlois	Viau
Lapointe	Warren
Laurendeau	Weir
Leger	Whitman
Lesage	Winkler
Little McCann	Winters-102.
PAIRS	
(The list of pairs is whips.)	furnished by the chief
Messrs:	
Gardiner	Ross (Souris)
Fontaine	Lockhart
Mcllraith	Skey [DOT]
Eudes	Massey
' Mr. BRACKEN: I was paired with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.
Mr..BRYCE: I was paired with the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BROOKS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Tremblay). Had I voted I would have voted for the; motion.


Mr. STIRLING:: I was paired with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.
Motions jor Papers


Mr. McLURE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Douglas). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. JACKMAN:: I was paired with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Claxton). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. HEON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Dionne). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. GLADSTONE:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Ross). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. LACOMBE (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Bertrand). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. GAGNON (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Marquis). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.



BED LAKE, KEN0RA AND PATRICIA DISTRICTS- AIRPORT FACILITIES AND MINING ROADS

Mr. BENIDICKSON moved:: For a copy of all correspondence, reports and 'surveys since 1930 in the possession of any department of the government in connection with, (a) landing strip or airport in the Red Lake area; (b) mining roads in the districts of Kenora and Patricia. .
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have agreed to drop this motion.
Motion dropped.



COMMODITY PRICES-WARTIME PRICES ENFORCEMENT

Karl Kenneth Homuth: For a copy of all correspondence between the Commodities Prices Stabilization Corporation Limited and the enforcement administrator of the wartime prices and trade board from the 1st August, 1944, to the present time.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Because of the same objection which applied to the second motion on the order paper, I must take the position, on behalf of the government, that this correspondence is not producible. The Commodities Prices Stabilization Corporation Limited has always been regarded, in connection with the production of papers and documents, as an agency of the wartime prices and trade board, or an agency of the government. They work closely together. In its true nature, this is intra-departmental correspondence which is being asked for. It is not in the public interest that it be produced.


Gordon Graydon: Then how do members
of the house get information?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: May I ask the minister-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Oh, now-


Gordon Graydon: Stay on your feet.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: As mover of this motion
the hon. member may have the floor.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I realize that we who sit
in the opposition cannot overcome the preponderance of votes on the other side of the house. But may I ask the Acting Prime Minister this question:	Does his statement mean
that when the public accounts committee is set up, this information cannot be produced before that committee? Are we to understand that the people of Canada are to be denied this information when the public accounts committee is set up?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is a matter which will have to be considered by and in the public accounts committee.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Then, in lieu of forcing
another vote, which I think would be a waste of time-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: -will the Acting Prime Minister promise the house that the public accounts committee will be set up immediately, so that we can go into some of these matters of vital interest to the people, of Canada?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I said yesterday that if any
member of the public accounts committee wishes to have it set up, it will be set up immediately. But he will have to make the request.


Gordon Graydon: He is making the request now.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is set up now.


Gordon Graydon: It has not met, though.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Any member may ask to have it convene..


James Horace King: As I have already said,
these notices of motions for the production of papers are not debatable. I have permitted the hon. member who moved the motion to reply to the minister, but I cannot permit a debate. I shall put the question to the house. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion? Those in favour of the motion will say yea.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yea.


James Horace King: Those against the motion will say nay.

Revision of Rules


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nay.


James Horace King: In my opinion the nays
have it.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: On division.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
The Prime Minister-The following resolution:
Resolved, that in the opinion of this house, it is expedient that Canada possess a distinctive national flag and that a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be appointed to consider and report upon a suitable design for such a flag;
That standing order 65 of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto;
That the said committee have power to send for persons, papers and records to aid in the discharge of its functions; and
That a message be sent to the Senate to inform their honours that the House of Commons has appointed this committee and to request their honours to appoint members of the Senate to act thereon with the members of the House of Commons as a joint committee of both houses.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): Yesterday I said I was not prepared to go ahead with this motion until I received the names of hon. members of the official opposition who would appear on the committee. I would ask the leader of .the opposition if they would be kind enough to let me have them to-day.
Thomas Langton Church: When will it come up?


John Bracken: The Minister of Veterans
Affairs has asked about the names of members to serve on a committee which the house has not yet decided to set up. I may say to him that if this resolution should be passed we will have the names of the members who are to serve on it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Speaking to a point of order, my hon. friend is technically quite within his rights, but the custom in the house has been that the names of members of a committee be subjoined to the resolution itself, so that the house will know the names of members who are to serve on the committee. That has been the custom for years in this House of Commons. If my hon. friend declines to submit the names, the resolution will be moved to-morrow in any case.


John Bracken: Why not go ahead with it to-day?


Thomas Langton Church: I object after this was set as first business for to-day-it is being held over again for some reason'-why not drop it for this session?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It stands.
Order stands.



SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO ASSIST MR. SPEAKER IN REVISION OF STANDING ORDERS

James Lorimer Ilsley: That a special committee consisting of Messrs. Adamson, Gladstone, Glen, Golding, McGarry, dean, Maelnnis, Pouliot, Quelch, Smith (Calgary West) and Stirling be appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in revising the standing orders of the house with, a view- to simplify, accelerate and expedite its business, and to report to the house during the present session.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I wish to object in part to the text with regard * to this particular proceeding at the present time, for the appointment of the committee. May I have it understood that while I am in favour of appointing the committee, I am not in favour of its appointment along some of the lines indicated.
On the last occasion this matter was before the house there was an extended debate on the subject. A committee was appointed, and a report was brought down. I was sorry that that report was not adopted.
For a few moments may I revert to our proceedings, which to a great extent are bound up with the rules which obtain in the British House of Commons. Ad Westminster much has been done to shorten proceedings, and to a great extent this has been brought about by the question period extending for three quarters of an hour from 2.45 p.m. to 3.30 p.m. each day.
A new book on parliamentary procedure was published in 1930 by G. F. M. Campion, second clerk assistant of the British House of Commons. He has been knighted and is now Clerk of the House. I may point out that our present rules are sufficiently broad to enable the asking of supplementary questions when the orders of the day are called, He states:
Not later than three o'clock the question "hour" begins. This is a more important item of business than any yet described. It is expected to provide lively moments and seems to be of unfailing interest to members and the public. It is modern and affords a useful method of supervising the administration of the government. Its effectiveness is generally recognized. Questions "turn a searchlight upon every corner of the public service." (Lowell,
Revision of Rules

i. 332.) Their chief object is "the explanation to the public of the meaning of political events", and "they are -often arranged by the government itself, so as to give them an opportunity of making announcements in a somewhat information way." (Redlich, ii. 241 and 242.) They are "serviceable as obviating the necessity in many instances of more extended debate and of motions for papers." (Todd, 1982, ii 85.) And finally, "Questions afford to the private member under modern conditions almost his only opportunity." (Marriott, i. 571.)
It will be noted that under our standing orders, in all cases not provided for in our rules the usages and customs of the British House of Commons as in force at the time shall be followed. I am quite certain that it is a member's right to ask any pertinent question of a minister, on the orders of the day being called, and Mr. Speaker could not prevent the adoption of that practice in this house. I believe we do not need any amendment to our rules to enable the asking of supplementary questions. In my view our rules are broad enough to permit that, but it should be made very plain in our new rules if questions are short.
When the committee is appointed I hope something will be done along these lines, because I believe if we are allowed to ask questions when the orders of the day are called it will expedite proceedings, and eliminate a great deal'of debate. I have here the British Hansard of August 23 in which I find that a large number of questions were asked in the British house on the orders of the day, seventy-five per cent of which questions would be ruled out of order here. This committee is being appointed and should at once consider the privileges of private members of the house, which are being taken away. We had an example of that to-day.
In conclusion, I should like to pay a tribute to your predecessors as speakers and yourself, and' especially to the very learned Clerk of the House of Commons who has devoted his whole life to the public service and who is without a peer for efficiency, fair dealing, kindness and courtesy. I think such a tribute is long overdue to him from all sections of the house for the able way in which he has helped the house with dignity to transact its business.


Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I am entirely in accord with the motion to appoint a committee to consider changes in the rules and to make recommendations accordingly to the house. That such changes are necessary seems to be evidenced from what has happened to me within the last week in this house. I do not know that that requires a change in the rules so much as living up to the rules.

A few days ago the hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot) used certain words of which I complained as being offensive as applied to me. He said:
It was a malicious and wicked attempt to deprecate the province of Quebec in the minds of the people of our sister provinces.
The house was in committee of the whole at the time, with the Deputy Speaker in the chair. It will be observed that on November 1 when acting as chairman the Deputy Speaker ruled that it was too late for me then to ask the hon. member for Temiscouata to withdraw his statement, and he did so on the authority of section 261, page 107, of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, which reads:
The proper time for interference is when the offensive expressions are uttered, and not afterwards; and it may take place, either on the Speaker's voluntary motion, or on the call to order of the member assailed, or of some other member, or the general call of the house.
He stopped there, but the following paragraph is equally, perhaps more important. It reads as follows-


James Horace King: Order. I would call the attention of hon. members to paragraph 118, page 35, of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, second edition, which reads:
Silence is required to be observed in both houses. In the Commons, all members should be silent, or should converse only in whispers.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Now I shall have less difficulty in being heard. The part of section 261 which the Deputy Speaker failed to read is as follows-I quote from page 108 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition:
The Speaker feels more strongly his duty to interpose and check language which seems unparliamentary with regard to an absent member.
When the words were used by the hon. member for Temiscouata as applied to me I was not in the chamber, and therefore it was the duty of the Deputy Speaker, who was in the chair, to take the necessary steps to see that the member who used those offensive words withdrew them. But he did not do so, and therefore, Mr. Speaker, I maintain that there was a dereliction of duty on his part, and I hope that when this committee meets it will revise the rules so as to provide a suitable punishment for such an offence.
I should like to call attention to another paragraph in Beauchesne which applies with equal force to what happened on that occasion. Paragraph 231 on page 98 reads:
If offensive words are spoken in committee, which are taken down, the house only, and not the committee, can take notice of them.

Price Control


James Horace King: Order. I wonder if the hon. gentleman is not going a little too far. It is his privilege to bring his case before the house to prove that it may be necessary to amend the rules, but I wonder if he should go so far as to accuse the chairman of the committee of dereliction of duty. I repeat that it is his privilege to explain why he thinks amendments to the rules are necessary, but I do not think he should take this opportunity to present again his own case which has already been settled in committee and in the house.


Thomas Langton Church: While I bow to your ruling, is it not a fact, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. gentleman is trying to show the necessity for amending the rules of the house dealing with the privileges of private members? He is simply trying to justify by this committee an amendment to the rules of privilege.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: In rising I thought it was necessary to read the full text of section 261 Beauchesne rules and to refer my case' to this committee when it is set up to see if it cannot devise some means of preventing the injustice which I suffered on that occasion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. ROSS THATCHER (Moose Jaw):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether in view of nation-wide merchandise shortages any steps are being taken by the government to prevent manufacturers from holding goods off the market until January 1, when the forty per cent reduction in the excess profits tax takes place?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Under the provisions of order in council P.C. 8528 of November 1,	1941, as amended,
establishing the wartime prices and trade board regulations, it is an offence against the regulations for any person to withhold from sale any goods beyond an amount which is reasonably required for the ordinary purposes of his business. Through regular investigations and enforcement procedure, the wartime prices and trade board takes all reasonable steps to enforce the regulations.
I think I should go further and say that if the hon. gentleman has any specific instances of the withholding from sale of goods beyond the amount reasonably required for the ordinary purposes of business and would
bring those instances to the attention of myself or of the wartime prices and trade board, the matter will be investigated.



NINTH VICTORY LOAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. STEPHENSON (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister-of Finance if any town in Canada besides Port Hope has reached its objective in the ninth victory loan. Port Hope has reached its objective of $625,000 and has set a new objective of one million dollars.


James Lorimer Ilsley: My congratulations are extended to Port Hope, and also to the county mentioned the other day by another hon. member.


Major James William Coldwell: Are we all to follow this lead?
Mr. MaeINNIS: Put it on the order paper.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the ordeTS of the day.
Thomas Langton Church: Has the leader of the house or the acting Secretary of State for External Affairs received any communication from the Prime Minister, who has been over in England four weeks, as to the object of his visits?


Gordon Graydon: Just an intra-departmental communication!


Thomas Langton Church: As to the Prime Minister's visit to the old country, in view of press notices I think the House of Commons is entitled to some statement. The matter relates to external and foreign affairs.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, the Prime Minister has been in
communication with the government here with respect to the purpose of his visit to Washington-if that is the question.


TIMBER CONTROL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Munitions and Supply, in connection with the order from the timber controller requisitioning for Wartime. Housing Limited 900,000 feet of
Timber Control

lumber from the lumbermen's association a few days ago. Was that order made under the minister's direction, and if so, what provision is to be made to protect the lumbermen affected against actions in damages for breach of contract arising out of their inability to carry out their private contracts, occasioned as a result of the taking over of this lumber?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have no knowledge of the transaction referred to by the hon. member.


John George Diefenbaker: Did the minister not get a letter about it on November 2 from the lumbermen's association?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No doubt one came to my office. Letters of this sort are always referred to the officer who has the information for a report; and while I may have had the letter, I have not had the report. All lumber is at the disposal of the timber controller. Those that deal in lumber are well acquainted with the rules governing the amount they are allowed to export, and the amount they are allowed to deliver on certain contracts. I am sure that the timber controller will have ample grounds for any action he has taken. However I will look into the situation and let my hon. friend know.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is strange that the minister responsible for Wartime Housing Limited for whom the lumber was allegedly taken over, does not know of the actions of the timber controller. Mr. HOWE: Why would I?


John George Diefenbaker: That is what we say; why would anyone know what the controllers are doing?



CANADA PRIZE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, October 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. St. Laurent for the second reading of bill No. 10, to provide for a prize court and prize law in Canada.
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead): Mr. Speaker, I adjourned the debate on this motion some days ago. I have had an opportunity of examining the bill, and so far as I am concerned there is no objection to its principle. I shall be able to say all that I wish to say and ask the questions I wish to put to. the minister when the bill reaches the committee stage.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.

On section 1-Short title.
John George Diefenbaker: Section 1, I assume, affords an opportunity for certain general references which I should like to make at this stage.
So- far as the legislation as a whole is concerned, the purpose of the bill is to invest jurisdiction in prize matters in the Exchequer Court of Canada and to provide certain rules governing the exercise of jurisdiction. Prior to 1934, when the Canadian Admiralty Act was passed, the exchequer court bad this jurisdiction. During recent years there has been a very great increase in the number of cases in the exchequer court, with the result that the exchequer court as at present constituted is unable properly to discharge its responsibilities. The growth of litigation in the exchequer court has been phenomenal since the outbreak of war by reason of the fact that so many crown corporations have been set up; and the situation for litigants in that court is becoming intolerable. All interested in the administration of justice are agreed in this, that one of the first qualifications of a court is that justice should be assured; and the second principle, which is of equal importance, is that justice should be made expeditious. And yet, with three judges on the exchequer coutt, all of them most estimable men, the situation is such that something must be done in order to assure a greater degree of expedition than has prevailed since the outbreak of the war. When I say that to-day there are 100 judgments on cases that have been argued in the Exchequer Court of Canada and that are more than one year overdue, some indication is given of the pile-up of work and the necessity for something being done to assure greater expedition in the handing down of these judgments.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There is quite a large accumulation of cases heard more than a year ago, but my information is that it is less than sixty. The hon. member mentioned 100. The information I have is that it is less than 60.


John George Diefenbaker: I cannot put my hand on it now, and I am speaking entirely from recollection-
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There are too many.


John George Diefenbaker: -but within the last three weeks the hon. member for Front-enac-Addington asked that question and it was answered in Hansard, and my recollection is that it was over 100. But whether it is 60 or 100, it is a serious matter and it simply means that justice to one side or the other is being denied for an unreasonable length of time. I suggest that the minister should now

Canada Prize Act
consider increasing the number on the exchequer court and taking steps to assure that as far as possible, that these judgments be brought up to date. If the acceleration in the number of cases continues-and recently one can see that the numbers are increasing instead of decreasing-the court will never be able to bring its judgments up to date. I think this is the opportunity to bring the matter to the minister's attention.
I will not discuss generally the situation with regard to the judiciary, but I think the whole question should be reviewed. Now that the war is over, the judges should devote themselves to the function of administering justice in the judiciary instead of occupying positions in other spheres and in connection with other matters. I do not want to refer to specific cases, but as a matter of fact we have one appeal court judge in one province who has been a judge for six years and has never tried a case. Things of this kind are not conducive to an appreciation on the part of the public of the high standard of administration of justice which is demanded. I suggest to the minister that something be done to assure a more expeditious determination of the cases argued before the exchequer court.


Mr. HACKETT:: Is the committee to
understand that the prize court which is to be set up by this statute will have a more extended jurisdiction than the old court which existed under the provisions of the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Not a more extended jurisdiction than that which it had just prior to the repeal of the Admiralty Act in 1934, but the extent of jurisdiction of the colonial courts of prize was determined both by statutes and by commissions and varied from time to time. The purpose of this statute is to give the court jurisdiction in prize and to take as the law applicable that which was the law of the United Kingdom on September 10, 1939.


John Thomas Hackett: That is a broader jurisdiction, is it not, than that which was enjoyed before the statute of Westminster brought to an end the effect of imperial legislation in the dominions and particularly in Canada? I believe the jurisdiction was restricted by the imperial statute to matters which might go before the vice-admiralty court as distinguished from the admiralty court.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes.


John Thomas Hackett: That is true.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That is true.


John Thomas Hackett: And I suppose, now that the war is over, the number of cases which are apt to come before the prize court is limited?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	Well, I would not
anticipate that any more cases would be instituted, unless unfortunately we got into another stage of active hostilities. These prize cases arise out of the existence of a state of war. A certain number were instituted at the beginning of this last war, and a certain number are still pending before the court, but I do not know of any other state of affairs which would be likely to bring further cases before the prize court.


John Thomas Hackett: How many cases are now pending, and in how many of them is the prize aircraft as distinguished from vessels to which prize law the act applied exclusively in its early stages?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There are none with respect to aircraft. Twelve were instituted since the beginning of the war, all in connection with ships. Perhaps it might be of interest to the committee, in view of the fact that there are only twelve, to mention them and to mention the state of the proceedings at the present time. The Weser, a German vessel, was seized by His Majesty's Canadian Ship, Prince George in September, 1940, and condemned as a prize. As the vesesl was required immediately, no valuation was made, but a survey and a record of all information relating to the value was ascertained, and this ship was condemned as a prize on January 18, 1941, and made available to the allied nations shipping board. The next was the Capa Noli, an Italian ship seized in the St. Lawrence river near Bic in June, 1940, with cargo. The ship and cargo were condemned as a prize on November 19, 1940. The cargo was sold and the proceeds were remitted to the custodian of enemy property. The information as to the ship was recorded, but no valuation was made at that time. Then there were seven Danish ships with respect to which prize court proceedings were instituted for the purpose of putting them under the British flag. The Europa was seized in Halifax harbour on April 20, 1940, and immediately requisitioned out of prize court and made available for allied shipping. The Europa was valued at the time at $1,614,963.
The Randa, also a Danish ship, was seized at Halifax on April 23, 1940, requisitioned out of prize court on May 11, 1940, and appraised at $247,349. The Asbjorn was seized on April 23, 1940, at Saint John, New Brunswick, and requisitioned on April 29, 1940. She was appraised at $1,237,654. The Erik Boye was seized on April 22, 1940, at Halifax, requisitioned on April 26, 1940. She was appraised at

Canada Prize Act

$331,191. The Chr. J. Kampmann was seized at Halifax on April 22, 1940 and requisitioned on April 26, 1940. She was appraised at $341,012. The Bornholm was^seized for the Royal Navy at Halifax on April 24, 1940, and requisitioned in May, 1940. She was appraised at $631,602. This ship was transferred to the United Kingdom ministry of war transport. The Erria, a Danish ship, was brought by Royal Navy to Vancouver harbour on June 1,
1940,	and requisitioned on June 4, 1940. Information was recorded but no appraisal was made. She was transferred to the United Kingdom ministry of war transport. By arrangement with the .United Kingdom ministry of war transport the requisition was terminated and the vessel released to her owners on October 17, 1945. With respect to the other Danish ships, the matter of whether there shall be compensation and what compensation shall be paid to the owners, is under negotiation.


John Thomas Hackett: Does the term "requisition" mean that the seizure was made by His Majesty in the right of a government other than that of Canada?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No. These ships had been seized' and prize proceedings instituted in the prize court. Then they were requisi-' tioned out of the prize court by order in council under the War Measures Act and because they were urgently required for the purposes of allied shipping at the time. With respect to those Danish ships, though they were seized, they were almost voluntarily surrendered by their owners who apparently wished to make them available for the purpose of allied transport, and who wished them to be under a British flag.


John Thomas Hackett: The prize court was the only way to have them transferred?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The prize court was the short cut to change the registry and put them under British flag.
Then there was a small French fishing vessel, the Angelus, siezed with a cargo of fish in August, 1941. The cargo was sold as perishable goods and realized $12,785. The vessel was requisitioned on May 11, 1942, and used for war purposes. The matter of adjusting compensation to the owners has not yet been determined. Then there were two other seizures, the Carolus, a Finnish vessel, seized in Halifax August 4, 1941, Finland being then considered as territory occupied by the enemy. She was requisitioned out of prize court for purposes of allied shipping on August 13,
1941.	The Ericus, another Finnish ship was seized on August 8, 1941, and requisitioned

on August 13, 1941. There was no appraisal of those ships made at that time. They were taken and used, and- the matter of adjusting compensation, if compensation is to be made, has not yet been determined. As a matter of fact the Canadian government is in correspondence with the appropriate authorities in the United Kingdom for the purpose of having some common policy determined with respect to the. treatment to be accorded to the former owners of these vessels.


Thomas Langton Church: I wish to call the attention of the committee to one or two matters regarding the question of jurisdiction. I notice that the word "Ship" appears in section 2, but no definition is given. The Admiralty Act of 1934 is also referred to, and this is a part of the act of that year that I do not approve. I call the attention of the committee to the fact that the definition given in the interpretation clause will cause confusion and conflict, because under the maritime law and the Shipping Act of 1934, the word "ship" includes any vessel not propelled with oars. I presume that would include the very class of ships named in the interpretation clause. Will this measure lead to an enlargement of exchequer court jurisdiction in Canada? In each province there is one admiralty judge. The last point that I wish to deal with in connection with the bill is the conflict of jurisdiction. Has the minister consulted the government of Great Britain or the governments of the other dominions as to the changes in the shipping law or prize courts? I notice that under the bill we are claiming jurisdiction within the territorial waters of Canada on ships of cobelligerents in certain cases. Will that not lead to a conflict of jurisdiction? Has any consultation been had with the United Kingdom or the governments of the other dominions regarding any conflict within the empire that there may be in prize matters? The way we are giving ships away we shall have very few left. I do not know whether my hon. friend, the former minister for naval services, approves this bill, because before the war our fleet had ships with only a total tonnage of ten thousand. What consultation had the government with the British admiralty or the British government and the governments of the dominions regarding these . prizes, their division and the courts set up? There will be a very large number of these ships in the prize court. We have yet to make arrangements with the mother country, the dominions and our other allies regarding the parcelling out of the ships and who is to get the prizes. There is bound to be, as in all wars, a great deal of conflict about the

Canada Prize Act
division of the spoils. I should not like to see this bill passed to-day unless proper notice were given to our allies. The merchant marine of Canada is bound to go up by leaps and bounds in the years to come. I had hoped there would be some provision in the bill for the protection of those merchant seamen who saved the British empire in this war and in the last war. The merchant marine seem to be the forgotten agency in this house. Many of our merchant marine were lost during the war; many of our ships were sunk on the seven seas. I hope that the minister will give some further details or explanations of the matters I have raised before this bill gets third reading.


John George Diefenbaker: I looked up the reference in regard to judgments in the exchequer court. According to the return there was a mistake made in the actual number of judgments. Two lawyers, both depending on memory, made a mistake. One made it one hundred, and the other sixty; actually it is thirty-four.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I made it less than sixty. The return appears on page 1074 of Hansard. In answer to the hon. member for Broadview, there has been no consultation in the sense that we would feel that we should have the legislation approved by any authority other than the parliament of Canada. The matter came about in this way. There was an arrangement entered into in 1944, of which we were apprised, between the allies, that there would be no prize salvage as between them. Prize salvage is the recompense for retaking from the enemy something belonging to ourselves or to an ally that had been captured by the enemy; and it was suggested that we make it a provision that no prize salvage proceedings could be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General. That was done by an order in council. When the matter was brought to my attention I suggested at once that we have this dealt with immediately by order in council, because it was urgent, but that we have a bill prepared providing for prize court jurisdiction otherwise than by order in council; that we have it by statute. That statute was prepared, but at the following sessions there was no opportunity to have it dealt with because of the pressure of war legislation which was more urgently required, and the bill now before the committee is for the purpose of setting up a prize court by statute under conditions which conform with the arrangements we have had since the beginning of the war with the United Kingdom and our other allies.
47696-X22J
I quite appreciate the concern of the hon. member for Broadview for the merchantmen who acted so nobly and were exposed to such great dangers during the war period, but that will have to be dealt with elsewhere than in the provisions of this bill, which applies merely to prize taken from the enemy during the course of the war. As I stated a moment ago, I know of no circumstances at present which would appear to indicate that there would be further prize cases as a consequence of this last war.


Grote Stirling: What is the situation with regard to proceedings that might be taken when a Royal Canadian naval ship captures a naval ship of the enemy? Are proceedings taken, and does prize money accrue to the ship's company of the Canadian warship ?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That is a question upon which I would hesitate to give any complete answer. What is proposed is that the prize law of the United Kingdom as it existed on September 10, 1939, will be the prize law administered by this court, until such time as this parliament chooses to make any change in it. I had asked the law officers to try to codify that law, but they told me that much of it wTas in archaic language that had been construed by court decisions, and that it would be extremely difficult and somewhat risky to attempt to express it in the terms of a statute; that if we wished to make no change which might be prejudicial to some interest the thing to do was to take that law as it existed and leave to the courts the responsibility of determining judicially, from the statutes, from the decisions of the courts and from their knowledge of international law, what were the rights arising out of the capture of prize as an act of war. It was felt that until something arose which would' induce parliament to make a change it would be fairer to take the old common law as administered by the British prize courts and leave to our courts the responsibility of applying that law without change to such circumstances as might arise.


Grote Stirling: Then could the minister tell the committee whether proceedings have been taken in that regard? For instance, I remember that a German submarine was captured and brought in by one or two corvettes. Have proceedings been started in that regard: ' and in a case like that, where two naval craft are concerned, is it the government of Canada that takes proceedings or the commanding officers of the capturing vessels, or how is it - arranged?'
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The only information I have about proceedings being taken in the
Canada Prize Act

prize court of Canada is with respect to the Danish ship Arria, brought into Vancouver harbour on June 1, 1940, by the Royal Navy. Proceedings were instituted before the Canadian prize court in connection with the German vessel Weser-I do not know what kind of vessel that was-seized by the Prince Robert in September, 1940.


Grote Stirling: It was an armed cruiser.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It was condemned as a prize.


Grote Stirling: Who instituted those
proceedings, when the Prince Robert took the Weser?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I have not the proceedings here; I should not like to say whether they were instituted in the name of the commander or in the name of the crown.


Mr. HAZEN:: Before they were instituted was it necessary to obtain the permission of the Attorney General?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No. At that time there was no requirement for permission of the Attorney General. In 1864 a United Kingdom statute was adopted which formed part of the prize law and which provided that:
Where any ship or goods belonging to any of his majesty's subjects after being taken as prize by the enemy is or are retaken from the enemy by any of his majesty's ships of war, the same shall be restored by a decree of a prize court to the owner on his paying a prize salvage one-eighth part of the value of the prize, to be decreed as ascertained by the court, or such sum not exceeding one-eighth part of the unestimated value of the prize as may be agreed upon between the owner and the recaptors, and approved by order of the court: provided that where the recapture is made under circumstances of similar difficulty or danger the prize court, if it thinks fit, award to the re-captors as prize salvage a larger part than one-eighth part but not exceeding in any case one-fourth part of the value .of the prize: provided also that, where a ship after being so taken is set forth or used by any of his majesty's enemies as a ship of war, this provision for restitution shall not apply, and the ship shall be adjudicated on as in other cases of prize.
It was because of the existence of that statute and because of an understanding arrived at between the allies that there would not be prize salvage as between them that a bill was introduced into the British parliament in March, 1944, determining that no proceedings to enforce a claim for services rendered in retaking a ship, aircraft or goods taken by an enemy shall be instituted after the passing of this act wdthout the consent of the admiralty or the secretary of state.
It was suggested to us that we pass similar legislation. As we had no statutory legislation

with respect to a prize court, I felt at the time that it would be inappropriate to limit by statute a jurisdiction which existed merely under order in council, so I asked at the time that a bill be prepared to create by statute a prize court; to include in that bill the provision asked for by the United Kingdom authorities to carry out their undertaking; and to provide for carrying out that undertaking in the meantime by a further order in council. That is what was done, and' that is one of the orders in council which I cited in my opening remarks on the second reading of the bill.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it correct to say that, in reality, while a prize court is being set up in order to deal with questions of prize law, nevertheless by reason of agreement among the allies, and the inclusion of section 6, there is provision that n-o claim shall be taken without the consent of the Attorney General, and that in fact no cases will come before this court, so far as prizes taken during the period of the war are concerned?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, that would be going beyond what is provided by the restriction as it is contained in section 6. The restriction in that section is not to apply to prizes, but rather to prize salvage. Prize salvage was a recompense for retaking from the enemy something which the enemy had captured. That was the only thing covered by the arrangement among the allies.


John George Diefenbaker: I understand.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That was done because there was this statute of 1864 which made one-eighth of the value the arbitrary prize salvage award that might be claimed. And it was for the purpose of allowing such a claim to be made only with the consent of the admiralty or the secretary of state that the bill to which I have referred was introduced in the parliament of the United Kingdom. I state this only as an explanation of the chronological development.
At the outbreak of the war we had no prize court, and provided for one by order in council. Then it was suggested to us that we alter the situation by statute. I felt, rightly or wrongly, that it would not be proper to ask parliament by statute to impose a restriction upon what had been done by order in council. We felt when we came before parliament we should ask it to deal with the whole question, and in the meantime we would implement this undertaking to the allies by means of further restrictive orders in council under the War Measures Act.

Canada Prize Act


John George Diefenbaker: My understanding is that this measure is almost a photographic copy of the British statute?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It is intended to be a statutory enactment for Canada of the United Kingdom prize law as it existed on September 10, 1939.


John George Diefenbaker: And there are no changes in this measure?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No changes other than the one in section 6 in connection with the narrow matter of prize salvage, where the consent of the Attorney General is required.


Grote Stirling: To date has any judgment been delivered in regard to a prize taken by a Canadian warship?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes, the German warship Weser was condemned as a prize on January 18, 1941.


Grote Stirling: Has that money accrued to the ship's company?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am not in a position to say whether any distribution has been made. I" should be inclined to think that has not been done, because the vessel being immediately required for purposes of war, although a survey was made, no values were ascertained. The matter is still in that position.


Grote Stirling: Why should it continue in that position? The act was accomplished; the ship was taken-if my memory is correct, by the Prince Robert-and I would presume that the ship's company of that armed cruiser belonging to Canada would be entitled to its share of the prize money.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: With respect to all these matters in the prize courts I am informed by the Department of External Affairs that we have been requested to delay the final determination of the proceedings until a common policy has been determined which would apply both here and in the United Kingdom, and also probably within the jurisdiction of others of our allies. There is one instance where very considerable sums of money have been realized from insurance. After having been requisitioned and put into service, the ship in question was destroyed. The insurance money was paid over. The owners have been most insistent in the last year and a half to have the matter' settled, and I must confess I have been rather impatient at not being able to arrive at a settlement. We have had protracted correspondence with the authorities In both Washington and London, and it is desired to have some common policy, which has not yet been
finally determined, adopted and carried out at least by ourselves, the United Kingdom and the United States in respect of these matters.


John George Diefenbaker: Section 6 would not
apply to anything which took place prior to the commencement of this legislation.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There had been no actions for prize salvage instituted in Canada and, though we did not anticipate there would be any, we were asked to provide that there could not be any without the consent of the Attorney General.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Definition.
John Thomas Hackett: Should there not be
added to section 2, a definition of the word "aircraft", as the jurisdiction of the court now extends to aircraft? In section 2 we find a definition of "ship", but there is no definition of aircraft.
In section 6 of the Aeronautics Act of 1944 I find the following definition of "aircraft".
In this part, unless the context otherwise requires (a) "aircraft" means any machine used or designed for navigation of the air.
I am not quite certain whether that would include gliders which are attached to aircraft and I find no reference to goods or cargo, as it appears in the definition of "ship".
Would the minister think well of adding to section 2 the following definition of "aircraft":
(b) "aircraft" includes any glider or machine used or designed for navigation of the air, with the equipment, tackle, furniture and apparel of the aircraft, and goods taken upon the aircraft.
If this were accepted the definition of "ship" would appear as paragraph (a).
Mr. ST. LAURENT: We have never had occasion to institute prize proceedings in connection with aircraft, and it was felt that it was an expression we might well leave to the judicial determination of the court. If the question arose as to whether or not something seized or brought under the jurisdiction of the court was aircraft, such question would no doubt be determined by the court. I should be rather fearful that any definition we might choose to make would be restrictive rather than otherwise.
We are dealing here with things taken from an enemy. We should) not, I think, be very much concerned about too precise definitions to protect the rights of the enemy. I would fear that any definition we inserted would necessarily have a restrictive effect rather than the effect to enlarge the possible jurisdiction of the court.
Canada Prize Act


John Thomas Hackett: If that be true, why does the minister maintain his definition of "ship"?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That definition was inserted because it was desired to make it broader than the definition included in the Admiralty Act of 1934, to make it cover more than it would without the words used in this section 2.


John Thomas Hackett: I do not wish to insist if the minister is entirely satisfied, but I draw to his attention that if we are forced in a prize case to accept the definition of "aircraft" given in the Aeronautics Act of 1934, the prize or a part of it might escape from the jurisdiction of the court, because that definition is, it seems to me, restricted to something that is propelled by an engine and leaves a port.-a glider or trailer or whatever you may choose to call it-as well as the cargo.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not think any prejudice is likely to arise from the bill as drawn. The inclusion of aircraft was borrowed from the United Kingdom statutes which applied principles of naval or maritime law to aircraft. Of course, if it is something that gets within the territory or territorial waters of our country it would be taken by the custodian of enemy property if it were not something dealt with under the prize court law. All enemy property of any kind or description becomes vested in the custodian on the outbreak of war.


Grote Stirling: Would the minister explain why under this clause the definition of "ship" covers tackle, furniture and apparel of the ship but does not cover either the machinery or the cargo?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The machinery, I think, would be included as an integral part of the ship itself. It was only necessary to deal with such things as remain movable, and not with such things as are incorporated into the structure of the ship. The. substantive provisions deal with aircraft or goods. That is intended to cover everything that is on the ship, including the cargo.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
On section 5-Court to take cognizance and judicially proceed in certain matters.
John Thomas Hackett: Do I undertsand from, the minister that it has been determined that no effort will be made to codify these statutes, rules and other enactments that go to make up the body of the prize law in Great Britain lest reenactment might place the object of a
{Mr. St. Laurent.]	I
prize beyond some of the ruling cases which have been decided on this antiquated body of law?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That is the report which was made to me by the law officers, that they would hesitate to take the risk of codifying that body of law because they did not feel that they were then, as competent as the courts might be to provide in statutory language for all the possible variations of circumstances which have been dealt -with by the decisions.


John Thomas Hackett: I can understand that. I do not know that in this particular instance there is a great deal at stake, because prize law comes into effect only during wars and there does not seem to be any likelihood of wars coming upon us in which the sources that inspire the legislation here will be on a side other than ours. But it is extraordinary that we should incorporate into our law a vast system of law which is not more definitely stated than by a date, the 10th of September, 1939. It will mean- that, whenever this question comes up, someone will have to. acquaint himself with that ancient and honourable system of prize law, and that there will probably be no local statute or enactment for the guidance of the court and counsel.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	My hon. friend and
myself find that rather embarrassing, but I understand that is the basis of the common law in the other provinces of Canada. They take as the foundation the law of the United Kingdom as of a certain date and have to apply it subject to such modifications as may have been made by statute, and they even accept subsequent decisions of the courts of the United Kingdom as elucidating what the law was and what therefore should be applied in their respective provinces. This will be a similar system. Even in my province, the province of the hon. member, up to the introduction of our code on the 1st of July, 1866, that is what we had to do for the civil law which we had inherited with our French traditions.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Consent of Attorney General to take proceedings.
Douglas King Hazen: 
Douglas King Hazen: Well, then, I will not ask
the minister to give it again.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	It was requested by
the United Kingdom authorities, for reasons which I explained and which the hon. member will find reported in Hansard.


Douglas King Hazen: What principle will guide the Attorney General in refusing or granting permission?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Probably it would be shorter to repeat the explanation. Under a statute of 1864 prize salvage was fixed at one-eighth of the value of a thing recaptured from the enemy; the allies during this war arranged that they would not recognize any prize salvage as against each other; and for the purpose of preventing the statute of 1864 from being invoked by individuals who might have been entitled to prize money a statute was enacted in. the United Kingdom stating that no such proceedings could be instituted without the consent of the admiralty or of the secretary of state. In order to make the arrangement effective, the United Kingdom authorities asked all the dominions to adopt similar provisions, so that no actions anywhere foT prize salvage money would be taken to the prejudice of each other, and what would guide the Attorney General would be the respect he would wish to have to an international arrangement. If-, in a case which was submitted, it appeared that the granting of the permission would violate an international agreement he would refuse to grant it.


John George Diefenbaker: That would appear
to be a section very much analogous to the position of affairs to-day with respect to the taking of civil proceedings requiring a fiat.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: This will possibly
give an opportunity to discuss this question of the fiat or order of the Attorney General permitting the taking of an action. This is a matter which has been dealt with on a number of occasions by the Canadian Bar association, the feeling generally being this, that having regard to the diversity of activity in which the government participates to-day, and having regard to the expansion of the activities of the government, the doctrine upon which the issue of a fiat is based should no longer be in effect. That generally is the viewpoint, I believe, expressed by committees of the Canadian Bar association which have dealt with this particular matter; and I feel that a statement by the Minister of Justice on this question would be very much welcomed. The procedure is based, no doubt,
upon the principle that "the king can do no wrong", and that therefore the king should not be brought before the courts of the land. I realize and I think the bar generally does, that under the present Minister of Justice there has been a considerable widening of the issue of fiats. I can think of one series of cases which came up some years ago, started by the Indians in Saskatchewan as against the Indian department for an accounting. A fiat was granted in one case. That case came before the exchequer court. It revealed that the Indians were receiving treatment which was far from what it should be, and that considerable sums of money rightfully belonging to this tribe of Indians should be returned to it. From that date on, other Indian tribes endeavouring to get fiats found themselves unable to get them.
I think that, generally speaking, the people of Canada believe that the time has come when this ancient doctrine of the inability of the subject excepting with the consent of the crown, to sue the crown should be, if not altogether removed, certainly diminished so as to enable justice to be done as between the subject and His Majesty the King.


John Thomas Hackett: There is just an additional word which might be said on that topic, that it never takes very long to know what the Department of Justice will do. I think requests for fiats are received there and dealt *with the day they are received. But the antiquated practice requires, or at least it did when I knew more of the Department of Justice than I do now, that the fiat go to the department affected, and there it has to wait until somebody dies or somebody blasts it out of the baskets of gentlemen who have things that they consider more important to do than to consider why their department should be pursued before the courts, and why gentlemen's peace and equanimity should be disturbed by being haled before the tribunals of the land to explain something they cannot explain.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: With respect to the question of petitions of right, I am not in a position at this time to state any other government policy than that of respect for the traditional prerogatives of the crown.
The matter has been frequently under discussion. There were reports required from the interested departments every time a petition of right was filed, and sometimes those reports took a very long time in coming back. For a considerable time now I have asked the officers, when sending out a request for information, to inform the department
Canada Prize Act

that the petition had been received and that a recommendation for a fiat would be made at the expiry of thirty days unless in the meantime they submitted good reasons for doing otherwise. I believe that method has speeded up considerably the issuing of fiats.


Gordon Graydon: On the question of traditions of right to which the minister referred a moment ago, it seems to me there is much merit in what my hon. friend the member for Lake Centre has said, and for a reason which appeals to me and will, I think, appeal to the committee generally. Year by year, owing to the trend of conditions in Canada, and perhaps elsewhere, government departments are dealing in a business way with more of the citizens than they have since confederation. This means, of course, that determinations of rights as between the various departments of government and the individuals with whom they deal have become much more multitudinous, and the business, of course, has become much more important than it was in those days when the idea existed that there was reluctance on the part of governments to grant fiats. I believe the minister should carefully consider the whole question of the granting of fiats in the light of changed1 conditions, which are not simply a matter of argument and theory, but are actually established facts under the present circumstances of government operation. For one individual who in former days would have business dealings with the government, there are to-day, I suppose, twenty-five; perhaps even that does not present the picture in an unduly exaggerated form. That being the case, it seems to me that there is a special reason and a powerful argument for the widening of powers with respect to the giving of fiats. It is an easy thing to deny an individual his rights when he is dealing with a government under the present system. Too much power, if I may say so, rests in the department which would be, in the event of litigation, a party to the suit. That is something which the minister might carefully review in the light of the changed conditions I have just described.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 7 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
On section 11-Proceedings commenced prior to this act to continue.
John Thomas Hackett: How many of the twelve cases pending have been finally disposed of?
I thought the minister said that one had been.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There have been cases where the thing seized has been condemned, but there is no case where there has been a final disposal of the proceeds of the prize.


John Thomas Hackett: So that there will foe a
substantial demand upon judicial time in disposing of the twelve cases.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not anticipate that there will be more than two or three in which there will be anything more than an application to the court to ratify an arrangement arrived at out of court.


John Thomas Hackett: Will the minister say whether any of these cases was referred to any court or judge other than the admiralty court?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No. No cases were referred to any ad hoc judge for the purpose of determination.


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


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. J. McCANN (Minister of National War Services) moved the second reading of bill No. 13, to amend the War Charities Act, 1939.
Mr. COLD  WELL@: Does the minister intend to say something about the bill at this stage?


Mr. McCANN:: The purpose of these
amendments is to bring all types of war memorial appeals under the purview of the War Charities Act. I may say that certain influential bodies throughout the country have made representations to the department that in their judgment it would be advisable if the war charities administration included the supervision of funds for war memorials. The Canadian chamber of commerce have made inquiries whether or not certain rules or procedures could be established for war memorial funds such as are now registered under the War Charities Act. There would be another advantage in having war memorial funds come within the jurisdiction of the War Charities Act, and it would mean that certain charitable organizations that would be approved by the department could automatically be accepted by the income tax division for purposes of the Income War Tax Act.
The main amendments to the act are amendments to section 1, and that extends the present definition of war charity fund to include appeals for war memorials. A new paragraph (c) has been added to define war memorial for the purposes of the act, and as will be noted in the bill which is now before the committee, war memorial shall include:
-any building or other structure erected, constructed, acquired, developed or maintained, or

War Charities Act
any real property acquired to commemorate the war or to preserve the memory of those who served in the war that has been either before or after erection, construction, acquisition, development, or the commencement of the maintenance designated by' regulation as a war memorial or is of a class that has been designated by regulation as a class of war memorials.
The War Charities Act has operated very efficiently during the six years of conflict, and the administration of the act has enjoyed the confidence of the Canadian public to a very marked degree. It has assured careful custodianship of public contributions averaging $30,000,000 annually for war charity purposes. It has also assured that these funds were raised at very low expense, that no personal profit accrued to the promoters, and that funds were put to useful purposes without duplication of services.
I am sure it will be of interest to the committee to learn that some four thousand funds and branches have held registration under the act at one time or another throughout the war years, and at September 30, 1945, the registration stood at 3,611. The termination of the war is bringing about a decline in the registration for truly war purposes, but an increase in registrations for rehabilitation piu-poses, and the department has been receiving many applications from war service funds throughout the country that these funds be transferred to other people or to other funds or organizations for the purpose of instituting some type of war memorial in these several communities.
May I say that these amendments to the act are purely for the purpose of protecting the public and seeing that the money which will be in those funds is handled properly and properly accounted for. I do not know that there is any further explanation I can give at this particular time, but when the amendments are under discussion I shall be glad to answer such questions as may be asked.


Major James William Coldwell: I think we can welcome this bill, and for several reasons. One of them is that it recognizes the trend across Canada in the choosing of war memorials. Generally speaking throughout Canada to-day there is a disposition to get away from the idea of erecting blocks of stone as the only memorials to those who served this country in the war, and of trying to select memorials which will be not only ornamental but useful to the men who return and to their children and the children and relatives of those who lost their lives in our country's service.
I think in that particular the amendments to the act which are now proposed are to be
commended. I believe too that the statement of the minister that an act of this description is being placed before the house in order to protect the public is one which will receive general approval from this house. I may add too that I believe the action of parliament in p'assing the War Charities Act several years ago was a protection to the public during the war from anything that might have savoured otherwise of fraud or of the mismanagement of funds that were meant to be used for specific purposes. There may have been abuses, but I do not know of them.
I believe that parliament acted wisely when it passed legislation making it necessary to obtain the approval of the department of funds to be raised during the war for charitable purposes. If we take the old definition of the word "charity" I think the term is all right. But if we think of the colloquial interpretation of the word "charity", it is all wrong when used in this connection. But I take it that this is following the old usage; and that in this case charity means a token of love rather than the relief of poverty and need. Therefore I want to say that we are generally in favour of this legislation.
I do not know just how liberal the interpretation of war memorials will be. That will depend very largely on the administration of the act and on the interpretation of the terms to be found in it. If the interpretations are to be made in the manner in which the language indicates, we shall have a pretty broad interpretation.


James Joseph McCann: The intention is to make
it as broad as possible.


Major James William Coldwell: That is what I should
think, from the language of the bill itself. I know that in many parts of Canada there are projects under way now -for the establishment in small towns, of memorial parks, community centres, community hospitals, libraries, and the like. They, I think, commend themselves not only to the men who are returning to those communities, from overseas, but to those whose sacrifices these memorials are intended to remember. The greater the extent to which we can work out a plan of encouraging provinces, municipalities and local communities to set up memorials which will be of use to the present generation and to posterity, the more effective those memorials will be.
In the interpretation of the bill I hope that some consideration may be given to something of which I have some knowledge, where a small town, with a relatively small assessment, desires to embark upon a memorial scheme which will benefit the people not only of the
War Charities Act

town itself but of the whole adjacent community, and yet the adjacent community may not be in a position to levy a tax on itself for a project somewhere else, we will say, in the adjacent town, or may even find it very difficult to do so, or perhaps even to get by some of the local government boards which have the supervision of such matters. I hope that there will- be a combination of the two, that such a town or village may embark upon a fairly substantial project, and may come under this measure so that they may appeal to the people of the neighbourhood with a view to using, by way of voluntary contribution as well as by taxation, an amount over and above that which can be raised in the ordinary way in the local village or town.
I am keenly interested, as I think we all are, in making provisions particularly in our smaller towns and rural communities, for re. creation facilities for our young people. When we read the delinquency statistics across this country to-day I think we must be filled with alarm at the amount of delinquency in the teen-age groups and those a little older. I am of the opinion that this is largely because we have not provided sufficient recreational facilities for the adolescent youth of our country.


Mr. REID:: There are many delinquent
parents in these days.


Major James William Coldwell: I know. I agree with
the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) that some of this stems from delinquent parents. I am not suggesting it is not so; it is so. On the other hand if the delinquency of parents can be mitigated in some degree by having the right kind of community activity to take care of the children who are neglected by their parents, and particularly the younger group of people, we shall have achieved a great deal. I am referring particularly to people in adolescence or early manhood and womanhood who have energies which can be used for good or ill. By providing recreational facilities of the right sort we not only develop the physique; I think-[DOT] and I am now speaking as one who for a long time was engaged in directing the studies of youth-that proceeding in the right way in this regard we can do a great deal for both the physical and the moral development of these young people.
Even in a city like Ottawa-and the same applies to larger cities-there are not enough facilities of this kind. We are considering the beautifying of the city as a national memorial, but at the same time we must give a good deal of attention to the recreation facilities that are to be established even in a city like Ottawa. If that may be said of Ottawa, it

may be said with much more force of some places remote -from Ottawa where even the facilities that we have here are inadequate.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is true right across the country.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes. I say even in this capital city, where we have some of these things, we need more facilities of this sort. I think if the men who have sacrified their lives in this war could come back and choose the type of memorial they would prefer, having in mind1 their own youthful experiences in this country this is the sort of thing they would approve rather than merely some piece of stone which may be, in a way, only a passing memory.


Thomas Reid: It does not enthuse.


Major James William Coldwell: No; it is only a passing memory. We of this generation who read the names of those who perished in the war perhaps will be reminded1 from time to time of some young men with whom we have associated, some we have known and respected and for whom we have had affection, but to future generations they will be just names. On the other hand the results of the building up of the physique and the moral fibre of our youth are passed on from generation to generation, and I think make for the greatest contribution to our nation. So I am very glad indeed to be able to rise and express these views, not only on my own behalf and in behalf of those associated with me but I believe in behalf of a good many people across this country; and I hope advantage may be taken of this act in many communities.
- I know some communities already have endeavoured to do something in this regard. I seldom advertise my own constituency in this house, because I think that is not what I am here for; but when I was out in my own constituency in the summer I found that in the small towrn of Rosetown, with a population according to the last census of some 1,400 people, speaking from memory, they had engaged a veteran, a young airman, to whom they were paying $2,000 a year to organize recreation in that progressive little town and for the community surrounding it, and already the results could be seen after even a very few months. I think if we could encourage similar efforts in the small towns as well as in a larger way across the country it would contribute to what we are all interested in, the building up of a better manhood and womanhood in the country in which we live.


War Charities Act


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the bill. I wish to say also that while I agree with much of what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) said, I think this idea of memorial parks may be played to a bit of an extreme. My view is that parks and playgrounds and recreational centres are positively the duty and business of governments anyway, regardless of memorials. These are things we should have, the things we all want, the things for which we are all pressing. Every community and every small town in the country would like something of that kind. I live in a very small village where there is practically no recreation for the children and young people except a few swings in the corner of a lot which has been fenced off by the town fathers. If they want a swimming pool, some club such as the Lion's club or some other organization comes along and initiates a movement for that purpose. If you say, "Well, why was this not done a long time ago?" naturally the communities reply, "We haven't any money." It is always the same old story. But my answer is that in a civilization such as we think we have, in any case, those things should be done quite apart from the question of memorials.
I am not altogether in sympathy with the idea that a monument is just a block of stone. Perhaps it is bordering on the sentimental and ejpotional side to think of a memorial of stone as representing the graves of those who may be buried in other parts of the world, but if you took sentiment and emotion out of life we would live in a pretty cold sort of civilization. I think of the memorial down here on the plaza. I know it cost a great deal of money, but I am rather proud of that memorial when I walk by it. Not only do I see its magnificance; I think to myself that it represents something, just the same. I do not believe I have ever passed that memorial and noticed a wreath, for instance, which somebody has put there, without thinking in my heart, "Well, some mother or some wife has done that in honour of her lost loved one." I am reminded of a beautiful little park in the city of Calgary. It is called Central park; it is only about a block long, but they take particularly good care of it. I want to compliment the government on its choice of the properties now housing the Belcher hospital, which is right across the road from this beautiful little park. Just between the soldiers' hospital and the end of the park, in the park grounds, is a fine modern type of stone memorial to those who gave their lives in the last war, and there are places where people can sit down. I have passed
there many times when soldiers have been sitting about; often I have seen wreaths on that monument. Many of our soldiers and airmen are missing; they just have not turned up. In some instances the mothers and fathers of those boys just do not know where they lie to-night; they do not know where they are buried. That is my case; I do not know where my son is buried. You may call it sentiment if you like. We go to the graves of those buried in our cemeteries, perhaps on their birthdays or on the anniversary of their death, and we put flowers on their graves. Well, there are some citizens in Canada who cannot do that; but they can place flowers on a suitable memorial.
I am not saying that funds should not be granted for parks and recreational centres in honour of our fighting men. I am quite certain they would enjoy libraries and things like that, but let us not go to the other extreme. Let us have our parks. Let us have good parks. Let us have them well kept, even though it does cost money, and in those parks let us have suitable memorials as well, even though they are of stone, because even stone can sometimes speak.


Mr. W. A. McMASTER (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the two previous speakers that within the next few years a great many memorials will be erected in honour of those who lost their lives in the last war, and I believe the policy outlined in this bill is one which should commend itself to all hon. members of this house.
I was greatly interested in the statement of the minister as to the amount of money that [DOT] had been collected by charitable organizations. I must say I believe that the regulations made in 1939, ensuring that these moneys would be properly held and properly expended, effected a very good purpose. The reason for this amendment is to ensure that it will not be a matter of collecting money and handing it over, but rather one of erecting something that will be permanent.
Hon. members who have preceded me spoke about municipalities. As I understand it, municipalities have their powers given them by the laws of the provinces. I know that is the position in Ontario. In that province a year or two ago legislation somewhat similar to this was enacted, under which the province gave to the municipalities-cities, towns, villages, townships, counties, as the case may be-power to do what this measure allows private organizations to do. I take it that in many instances municipalities will be erecting
War Charities Act

memorials, and as municipalities are corporations with long or everlasting life, they will be in a position to maintain those memorials.
It is altogether likely that other more or less permanent institutions, such as those connected with education-whether they be public schools, eollegiates, universities or private schools-will be erecting memorials. No doubt they will be able to maintain them. Church and fraternal organizations will be doing the same, but I am not sure to what extent the educational, church and fraternal organizations will come under this measure. It may be that they will-and if so, I believe it would be in their best interests. Perhaps we should have some explanation or clarification of that point.
As I see it, the great problem is that a number of private organizations will undertake the erection of memorials, and I suggest that something be put in the bill to ensure that memorials erected by these organizations shall be maintained for all time-because there is nothing worse than to see a building, a park or any other memorial fall into a state of decay or disrepair, with no one available to look after it. When we go into committee I shall have something to say on the respective sections.
I suggest that either in this measure, or under the Income War Tax Act, contributions made or funds set aside for the erection of memorials should be considered as charities. It may be that such is the regulation now, although I am not sure.
I believe all members of the opposition are convinced that this is a good measure. We approve the principle, and we shall have something to say when the sections of the bill are considered in committee.


Mr. A. L. SMITH (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, may I have one moment?-atid I promise not to go beyond six o'clock. I am very anxious to say one thing to the minister who is in charge of war memorials, and it is this, that the government or parliament should not spend any of these millions on the national war memorial here until the city of Ottawa spends at least a dollar and a. half to put some names on its own streets. I have hunted this town for six weeks; I have watched very carefully, and I have found only four signs- and they no doubt were put there by the gentleman who originated the great art of camouflage we have heard so much about during the last two years.
On motion of Mr. MacNicol the debate was adjourned.


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

Thursday, November 8, 1945.