WAR EXPENDITURES

[Stage Direction]
Third and final report of special committee on war expenditures.-Mr. Isnor.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. LEWIS MENARY (Wellington North):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture; I have given him notice of it. How many pounds of dressed poultry were exported to the United Kingdom in the years 1944 and 1945 and how many pounds were exported to the United States during the same period?
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs):	May I take that as a
notice, and give the answer to-morrow.



SERVICE PERSONNEL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton):: In view of the urgent need for agricultural production in Canada, will the Minister of National Defence give the house an assurance that soldiers now stationed in military camps throughout the country will be released for bona fide work on farms, particularly those soldiers and veterans returning from overseas?

Senate and House of Commons


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of National Defence):: They always have been. That policy has been in effect for months. Any bona fide farmer applying for leave to work on a farm, if he is not eligible for discharge, is granted leave. I repeat, the policy has been in effect for months.


George Hugh Castleden: It is not working.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Oh, yes, it is. Over 15,000 have been let out.


George Hugh Castleden: I will give cases.



SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) -moved the second reading of bill No. 243, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act.
He said: The principle of this bill is to -provide an allowance of $2,000 a- year to members of parliament to enable them to defray expenses incidental to their calling as members. It provides that deductions shall be -made from this amount on the basis of non-attendance of members. It also provides in the case of ministers of the crown, senators, and the hon. the leader of the opposition, that the allowance shall be regarded as -taxable income. That is -the extent of the measure.
. Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East): On the resolution stage of this bill yesterday I stated briefly some objections that I had to it. If it is of interest to the members of the house I -may say -that it does not give me any pleasure to be in disagreement with so many members whom I like and respect. But when deep conviction conflicts with comfort, then in my opinion comfort must give way.
I wish first -to refer to some -points raised in the brief discussion yesterday. The Prime Minister in his -re-marks said that it is becoming increasingly difficult to attract the best type of men to public life. I do not think a statement such as that can be made unless we compare the -present house with previous parliaments, and in my -humble opinion the present -house, which was elected when the indemnity was $4,000-and mind you, I never heard of anyone saying that 'he did not want -to come here with that -indemnity-	-
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, yes.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: Several.


Mr. MacINNIS:: The Minister of Veterans Affairs says there were several."


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, there were.


Angus MacInnis: Well, I a-m quite sure he himself was not one of them, nor did I -hear candidates in British Columbia make that statement. ,


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That doesn't matter.


Angus MacInnis: If we compare this house with any -house since I came here first in 1930 I 'think we shall find that this house is away above former ones. If the Prime Minister will allow me to say so, all he has to do is to compare the .present cabinet, the members of which came into this -house with the indemnity at $4,000 a year, with former cabinets, and he will agree that the present cabinet is t-he best we have had since I came -here first in 1930.


An hon. MEMBER:: Take a bow.
M.r. MacINNIS: I am not trying to curry favour with anyone. I realize their ability in large measure and I appreciate in most cases their integrity.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


An hon. MEMBER:: Name them.


Angus MacInnis: , It is not necessary to name them. All a person needs to do is to speak frankly. I have in my hand the editorial page of the Monetary Times for December, 1945, from which I would quote two sentences. The article is under the heading " Federal Affairs," with the subhead, " Higher M.P. I.Q." I quote:
The new parliament goes on with its work with all the unhurried leisure-*
That does not apply to the last few days.
-that such bodies can display. There is an increasing illustration of the fact that this is a very decided improvement over the other in the intellectual average of its personnel.
The Prime Minister also referred yesterday to the greatness of the institution of parliament and to the necessity of preserving its character as such. I agree with him, and it is because I agree with him that I object to this measure at this time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Angus MacInnis: My hon. friends murmur. I have noticed during the last few weeks a consistent demand from that corner of the house that this item should be called, and every time I have heard the murmurings and the poundings of desks for that purpose I have been reminded of a remark that is attributed to the Duke of Wellington when with his army in - Spain. He looked them over and said, " I don't know what effect they will have on the enemy, but by God they scare me!" With the present state of world affairs hon. gentlemen opposite scare me.
Senate and House oj Commons

Another member said that members of parliament should have a higher remuneration because they had to give to bazaars and wreaths and make wedding gifts. That a member of parliament should contribute to such things never, I am satisfied, occurred to my constituents, and so far as I am concerned I think it is not only improper but indecent for a member of parliament to inject himself into the intimate lives of his constituents. When they need him they can call on him, but it is not his business to go round as a father bountiful at the expense of the taxpayers of the country.
The point was made that refusal by the members of the $2,000 would not help the conditions of the poor. That may be a good argument, but in my opinion it is bad logic, because it means that if we cannot help the poor there is no reason why we should not help ourselves.
My objection to the proposed increase is not based solely on the'fact that it is particularly unwise at the present moment because of the rising unemployment and distress. My opposition to raising the incomes of members of parliament before the incomes of the low income groups are raised is a basic one and of long standing. I do not believe that a member of parliament should be financially in a position above the average elector in his constituency. I do not believe that a member of parliament can understand the troubles and worries of his constituents unless he has felt these things in his very being.


An hon. MEMBER:: And goes on relief.


Angus MacInnis: Yes. I have seen members of parliament who came off relief right to this house, and they made excellent members of parliament. I would say that a member of parliament who came off relief would know more about the lives of the people in his constituency than a member of parliament who never experienced those conditions which his constituents meet every day in their lives.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member has no monopoly on that.


Angus MacInnis: I wish to draw attention to-


Mr. LENNARD:: Will the hon. member
permit a question?


Angus MacInnis: Certainly.


Frank Exton Lennard: Will he accept the
additional $2,000 if it is offered to him?


Angus MacInnis: The $2,000 is not offered
to me. If this house approves this bill, then it becomes law-


Frank Exton Lennard: Will the hon. member
accept it?


Angus MacInnis: Then it becomes the law
of the land, and I will accept the $2,000-


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Very small argument,


Angus MacInnis: -and I can make just as good use of it as can my hon. friends. Remember that I am subject to all the laws that are passed by this house just the same as you are.


Frank Exton Lennard: You do not have to
take it,


Angus MacInnis: All that my hon. friends
have to do is to square their conscience with their intellect.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: -We have as good a conscience as the hon. member.
Mr. MacINN-IS:	Then let them square
their actions with the conditions that prevail in their various constituencies.
In March of last, year I received a copy of a letter that was forwarded by a board of trade to the Prime Minister urging 'that steps be taken to raise the indemnity of members of parliament so as to attract a good type of -man to the House of Commons. I want to read to the house the pertinent parts of my letter in reply to that communication. It is dated April 3, 1945. I am taking the same .position to-day as I took in this letter, which I never thought would be made public. It reads as follows:
This is a most unusual resolution-
I was referring to the resolution favouring the raising of the indemnity of members of parliament.
-as I believe most people think the members of parliament are already overpaid. The situation has been a little difficult during tbe past few years because of the high income tax and the necessity of a member having to maintain two homes. If some consideration wrere given the expenses incurred while in Ottawa personally I do not consider the present indemnity too low.
About seventy-five per cent of the wage earners in Canada receive less than $1,000 per year, so a member of parliament with $4,000 is in the high income bracket. The thing we should set our mind to is to increase the national income so that there could Ibe an increase in the income levels all round. Until that is done, I could not feel justified in arguing for a higher indemnity for members of parliament.
We have asked our young men to make great sacrifices even the sacrifice of life itself during the past few years. I do not believe that

Senate and House oj Commons
anyone is making a sacrifice who serves his country and receives the remuneration that a member of parliament now receives.
That was my position then; it is my position now. The thing I object to in regard to this increase in members' indemnities is that it is being camouflaged as an allowance, and an allowance that is free from income tax. It is a fifty per cent increase in the indemnities of the members, and nothing less; but worse than that, it is proposed to make it free of income fax while we are still collecting income tax from incomes as low as $660 for a single person [DOT]and $1,200 for a married person. In effect we are asking these low paid income groups to pay our income tax in addition, to t'heir own.
I have here some figures in regard to wages and salaries; they are based on dominion bureau of statistics figures reached by a ten per cent sampling of the 1941 census. It gives the number and percentage of wage and salary earners in various categories. Those receiving over $3,000 a year in Canada numbered 54.600, [DOT]or 1-9 per cent of the wage and salary earners. A member of parliament receives $4,000 a year, *and therefore we would perhaps be in the l-o .per cent of the higher income receivers. Those [DOT]receiving $2,500 to $3,000 are even fewer, 1-3 per cent; $2,000 to $2,500, 3-5 per cent; $1,500 to $2,000, 9-4 per cent; $1,250 to $1,500, 6-6 per cent; $1,000 to $1,250, 13-1 per cent; $750 to $1,000, 12-6 per cent; $500 to $750, 15-7 per cent, and under $500, 35-9 per cent. Yet members of parliament feel that they are sacrificing something when they are serving this country at $4,000 a year.
There is another point that I wish to draw to the attention of this house. We have a wage control order in this country under which those who seek increases in their wages must go through the close scrutiny of differen' boards. Quite recently a board in Britisn Columbia granted a group of workers, among other things, two weeks' holidays with pay. That had to be approved by the national war labour board, to which they sent a delegation representing the employing company and the workers, both of whom agreed with the recommendation of the original board. But when they came down here the national board would not allow the two weeks' holidays with pay. Well5 they were just unfortunate. If they were in the position of members of parliament they would simply vote themselves two weeks' holidays with pay and a fifty per cent increase in their wages as well. Why should members of parliament be entitled to throw the wage control order into the ash can when they want to increase their own wages? Will someone please explain that?- not to me, or to this house, but to the people throughout the country who are compelled to
travel this road in order to get a meagre increase in their wages. I cannot conceive of a worse time than this for members to raise their own salaries.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: You don't have to take it.


Mr. MacINNTS:: I don't have to -take it, but you will get it. I say I cannot conceive of a worse time than this for members to raise their own salaries, a time when wages are toppling all over the country; a time when persons receiving unemployment insurance benefits are compelled to take jobs in some cases at less than half what they were receiving a few months ago; when old age pensioners are compelled to eke out an existence on S30 a month.


Mr. MITCHELL:: My bon. friend stated that workers are compelled to take jobs at fifty per cent less than they received a few months ago. I should like some examples of that. Don't overdo it, but let us have it clarified.


Angus MacInnis: All right; I will give my hon. friend the. number, the name, the old wage, the wage offered now, and the time on unemployment relief. No. G-45406, Theresa B. Ervin; old rate, $1; new rate offered, 16 cents; duration of unemployment, eight weeks and five days. Greta M. Nelson, A-432523; old rate, SO cents; new rate offered, 49 cents; duration of unemployment, five weeks. Emma M. Satzborn, No. 0-249615; former wage, 80 cents; wage offered, 41 cents; duration of unemployment, five weeks. If my hon. friend wants more I can give them to him, because I have several sheets of names from thevunem-ployment insurance office.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend used the word "compelled''.


Angus MacInnis: Well, wait a minute. I have here a report appearing in the Winnipeg Free Press, in which was quoted a letter from the deputy minister of labour. I am glad the minister gave me an opportunity to read this, but it does not make pleasant reading; I can tell you that. This is dated December 5, 1945:
Winnipeg central labour council, O.B.U., at its general meeting Tuesday night, at the Jordan block, strongly condemned the letter issued November 22, 1945, by the federal deputy minister's office on jobs and selected jobs and advertising for 5,000 bushmen for saw logs and pulpwood.
Vigorous protest against it will be forwarded to Prime Minister Mackenzie King by the council and its affiliated units.
The strongest objection in the letter by the delegates who branded it as "fascism of the worst sort," was the following:

Senate and House of Commons
"We hear much these days about 'full employment'. That (if it is attainable at all. which we doubt), does not mean work for everybody at the jobs they like, or a home for everybody in the place they like. Full employment means that people must move to jobs, not jobs to people, and that there must be enough people willing to take all the sorts of jobs that are offered. In a collectivist state, towards which we seem to be moving, full employment may even mean that people must work at what they are told to work at, where they are told to work, and at what hours and wages."
That from the Department of Labour.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is socialism.


Angus MacInnis: Socialism? Well, it is
socialism under the Liberal government, which is not necessarily the same thing at all. Yesterday in the house the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said this increase was necessary in order that parliamentary institutions might maintain their high character in the eyes of the people. In my opinion nothing parliament could do would be more damaging to itself than to pass the bill now before us. Let me put the case in this' way. When we were children we were told about the conduct expected of the officers of a ship overtaken by disaster at sea. The safety of the women and children, those weakest and most helpless, is considered the first responsibility of the ship's officers and crew. They are helped into the lifeboats first; then, if there is time, the crew, the< officers and last of all the captain are saved. How different is the procedure we are asked to adopt here. The captain of the ship of state tells us that it is more important to save the officers than the passengers; more important, in times of rising unemployment and increased living costs, to see to it that members of parliament are put beyond the fear of insecurity and want, than to see that those existing on the miserable pittance of the old age pension or on lower wage scales are put in a position where they can at least keep their heads above water. What would we think of the officers of a ship who scrambled first for the boats? What would the passengers think? How can we expect the people of Canada to have faith in those who look after their own welfare first? I would urge this house not to do this thing, which will bring the great institution. of parliament into disrepute.


Mr. H. W. IIERRIDGE (Kootenay West):: result in all of us pressing with ever-increasing vigour for increased incomes for the old age pensioners and other low income groups in this country-increased incomes they so sadly require.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, while the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) was speaking, I was trying to imagine What his logic would be if suddenly he were to find himself the father of six or more children. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that would make a better man of him. And if he were married to a woman who rather than being a brilliant careerist, a member of the British Columbia legislature, was by circumstances-


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker-
An bon. MEMBER: You cannot take it.


Angus MacInnis: I think that members of this house could have the decency to leave the wives of other members out of their debates. It so happens that my wife is not a member of the British Columbia legislature.


An hon. MEMBER:: She was.


Angus MacInnis: She was; that is true. If my bon. friend did not marry a wdman who had intelligence enough to get into the legislature, that-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. LOW:: I was not imputing any motives;
I indicated I was trying to imagine-and perhaps that is difficult under the circumstances of the hon. member's speech; let us go a little farther-I have tried to imagine just what his logic would be if he found himself representing a constituency like Cariboo, whic-h is represented by the hon. member beside me. If so, he would find that be would have to keep up an automobile and, believe me, that requires something up in that country. It is frontier country with few mads. You cannot just step on a street car and get to any other point in your constituency within fifteen minutes on payment of a nickel. Take my own constituency, that of Peace River. In order to reach one of the more inaccessible parts of that constituency I must get on a boat and travel more than a day. Thai requires the expenditure of considerable time and money. I have been thinking strongly of uniting my resources with those of the hon, member for Cariboo to purchase a helicopter so that we can get around. I have mentioned only two of the constituencies that might be referred to; I imagine there are a hundred or more in exactly the same position.

I was wondering also what the hon. member's logic would be if he felt that it was his vote that would decide whether this would be paid. He might act just the same, but it would be interesting to know.
Enough of that. I rose to say that I commend the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) for keeping his word, and I support him in this move because I feel it is one that has been delayed too long. My judgment is that the members of this house are no less important to Canada than are the congressmen of the United States. I think it is well known that the congressmen of the United States are given an allowance of $10,000, plus an additional amount up to $10,000 for assistance in carrying on their work during the year. I have said on another occasion that one of the disabilities that the ordinary members of this house suffer is that they have little if any secretarial assistance to prepare the voluminous material necessary in studying the various matters that come before this house. They have to dig out the material themselves; they have to spend their own time and often their own money in getting material. If a member does his duty in this house he has very little if any opportunity outside of the period he is in Ottawa to do anything but prepare himself for the work and the duties of this assembly.
Six thousand dollars is not a very handsome sum to people who give their whole attention to the business of such an assembly as this, and who serve their constituencies. In supporting the Prime Minister's motion I have in mind the improvement in the democratic procedure in Canada. I have always taken the position that a member should visit his constituency at least twice a year. He should go to his people before the session to get their instructions. That is the only way in which the- people can control the members of this house and get their will. To do that requires considerable money and considerable time. I think it is the duty of every member after a session of the House of Commons to visit his constituency and make a report

not just in one centre, but to go to the people and get their approval, we will say, of the things he has done. During the time I represented people in the legislature of Alberta I made it a point to cover my constituency twice each year. I visited every centre in the constituency and that is what I propose to do in the large Peace River constituency that I now represent. It would be impossible to do that on the indemnity that was set at $4,000.

Senate and Home of Commons
Just one point further. The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) contended that the passage of this measure would create a special class of citizen which was not taxed. That is not so. The income tax act of this country makes provision for deduction from taxable income of certain sums of money spent in earning the income as necessary expenses. This applies to travelling salesmen or railroad workers, such as engineers, firemen and brakemen. Many, of these men must maintain more than one domicile. They have their family domicile, and at the end of the line where they may have to spend a day or two they have another. They are allowed deductions from their taxable income to cover expenses paid in earning the income.
I have taken the position on more than one occasion that this privilege ought to be extended to the members of this house. No one, can deny that hon. members certainly spend a large portion of their indemnity of $4,000 in earning it, and they always have done so. Under the circumstances I must deny completely that it would be creating a special class in this country. It is merely extending to the members of parliament a principle that has been extended already to a large number of citizens engaged in other pursuits. Under the circumstances I must give my support to the measure.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I say just one word? Yesterday I placed the position of the majority of this group before the house whep. I said that we were prepared to support this measure. In doing so I drew attention to the fact that we were not only placing before the house the decision of the majority of my colleagues, but also the opinion of our own national convention. Our movement is based upon the discussion of national problems in local places, small and large, and it having . come to this decision by resolution at a representative convention, as the leader of that movement in this house and in the country it is my duty to place that point of view before parliament, It coincides completely with my own view in the circumstances.
Yesterday I had intended, and this is my real reason for rising at this moment, to refer to the inclusion of the honourable gentlemen in the other place. As long as parliament consists of two houses I suppose it is proper that no distinction shall be made between the two houses. I say categorically that if I felt that by withholding this consideration from the other place we were going to shear it of its power I would oppose this resolution. But in 47696-220
my opinion the two questions are distinct and separate. We are dealing now with a resolution having to do with the indemnities or payments to members of parliament, including both houses. I reserve the right at all times to do what lies within my power to reform an institution which I regard as an anachronism in these modern times. I can see no place for a non-elective institution in this modem democracy. I notice that the Prime Minister is bringing in a good many policies which he advocated years ago, and I should like to remind him that one of the policies which still remains to be implemented is the reform of the other place. May we hope that that will be done in due course.
Mr. MaclNNIS: It has been "reformed" by increasing its indemnity.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not want to argue with the hon, member for Vancouver East, but I want to say this to the house, that I have known the hon. member for a good many years, and I hope that no member of the house will impute to him a motive which I know is not his motive; for the hon. member for Vancouver East is-one of the most sincere and honourable gentlemen in this house.


Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, when the Prime
Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made a statement by way of introducing the second reading of this bill, he outlined briefly what he regarded as its principle. He stated that it was to provide $2,000 to meet the expenses of members of parliament, and that in addition it provided for a deduction from that item for non-attendance at this house, and provided also that that increased indemnity should be taxable when paid to members of the other place, to members of the cabinet, and to the leader of the opposition. I think that is a correct statement of the principle of this measure.
As I see it, the bill before us proposes, first, an increase in the indemnities of private members of the House of Commons of $2,000 that increase not to be taxed; second, an increase in the indemnities of the members of the other place, that increase to be subject to taxation; third, an increase in the indemnity paid to members of the cabinet and the leader of the opposition, that increase to be taxable.
The bill is based on a resolution which superseded a resolution introduced in this house 'some time ago, and for certain aspects of that change I commend the government. I could not have opposed the proposal to increase the indemnities of the private mem-



REVISED EDITION ' 3488

[Stage Direction]
Senate and House~oj Commons
[Stage Direction]
bers of this house, but I could not have supported the proposal to increase the indemnities of the cabinet and the leader of the opposition without requiring that they be taxable. So I commend the government for this feature o'f its change in policy.	.
The question now before this house is whether the proposal is or is not a good one for this country. I suggest that the answer depends upon the point mentioned by the Prime Minister, namely, whether it is going to improve the contribution which members of parliament can make to this nation from this time forward. I am not going to take time to-day to discuss that. I wish to comment upon one thing, the question of what this measure means. I think there has been a wrong interpretation in several respects of what it does mean.
I understand that the last adjustment of indemnities was some twenty-five years ago. Since that time what has happened? The income of the Canadian people has doubled. v The average wage and salary increases in ten of the leading industries of this country amount to one-third. Meanwhile, the time required of members of both houses in the pursuance of their duties has increased.
One thing which I think has always been wrong in connection with this matter is that the expenses of members of both houses have not been allowed as a deductible item in the income tax return. That, it seems to me, is the chief argument in favour of an adjustment of this kind at this time. Business people have it. Members of parliament should not be denied it.
I have had a rough calculation made to try to see exactly what the proposals in this bill mean, because they do not mean a net increase of S2,000 except to the private members of the House of Commons. The calculation I have here was made on the basis of an income tax payer *with only one dependent, his wife, and no dependent children. The net income of a member of this house or the other from his indemnity in 1938 after paying income tax was §3,930; in 1944, a typical year during the war, it was $3,036; a reduction of $900.
Mr. REID:: Is that for a married man or a single man?


John Bracken: A married man with no dependents other than his wife. Should this measure go through, his income after paying the tax would be $5,190, or an increase of $1,260 over his pre-war net income from this source; that is, about a one-third increase.


:

In the case of members of the other place the figures for the first two years are the same -1938, $3,930; 1944, $3,036. If this bill goes through, assuming they have no other income -which perhaps is not a correct assumption- their net income after paying the tax will be $4,475, an increase of $545 over pre-war.
But the interesting thing in this calculation is more with respect to the members of the cabinet and the leader of the opposition. Assuming they have no other income, their net income in 1938 would have been $12,980, and in 1944, $7,741, a reduction of five thousand dollars. That is the burden the members of the cabinet have been carrying during these years, and even with this adjustment now, it will bring their net income to $9,617, which represents a reduction of $3,300 in comparison with pre-war income from this source-a twenty-five per cent reduction even after this increase in indemnity is made.	-
I am not arguing on one side or the other in this matter at the present time. I have been trying to analyse the situation. I do not mind saying that personally this question is a bit embarrassing to me. I have been wondering what position to take, what position would be proper, and. I have come to a conclusion, which I will summarize in a moment. But the question before us is this: What are we going to do? Here is this measure. We must support it or oppose it. I could criticize it in some respects. I could criticize it as being untimely. Members of this house to-day are not worth fifty per cent more than they were a year ago; but they were worth more a year ago than they got.
It may be untimely too in that there are other inequities that have not been corrected in this nation. The member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) has raised that point and he says he hesitates to approve this measure while other inequities remain uncorrected. For such measures as this government has taken to correct those inequities it deserves credit. For such omissions as it has been guilty of in not having corrected those inequities it must accept censure, and I shall be one-I believe there are many others-who will censure it for those things. But the question is, shall we deny a measure of justice simply because there are other inequities that have not been corrected?
As for myself, and every other member for that matter, we cannot blow hot and cold at the same time on the measure. We have either to accept it or to reject it. Personally I should prefer to have nothing to do with it. I have considered whether we should move an amendment. I have considered whether I should
34S9

Senate and House of Commons
refuse to accept it myself. Briefly, this is my position. I think I should look like a piker trying to get some measure of public acclaim by opposing a bill which in some quarters will be unpopular. As I have said, the bill gives some degree of justice to private members of this house, even though I think it is untimely, and even though I am sure there are other inequities that call for correction in Canada at this time. Under all the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, this measure will receive no opposition from me, nor, I hope, will it receive opposition from any large section of the house.


Mr. FRED ROSE (Cartier):: 
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: In view of the statements we have heard this morning from leaders of the several parties opposite, and in the light of what I said yesterday, I might possibly be expected to allow the matter to rest there. However, I feel that some statements have been made which ought to be considered a little further and I therefore propose to add to what has already been said on this question.
First, may I remind hon. members that there are 245 members in the house and of that number only three private members have spoken on the measure, of whom two have opposed it, the other having supported it. All the leaders of the different parties in the ^iouse have supported the measure and have given substantial reasons for doing so, reasons which are all related to the public interest. I wish to thank hon. gentlemen who lead the several parties for joining with me in helping to make clear to the country the reasons which actuate the govemqient and parliament in taking this step at this time.
As regards the suggestion that its introduction at this time is "untimely", I do not agree with that at all. I think its introduction at this session is timely, and very timely. It is never too late to remedy a wrong or an injustice so long as that is possible, and personally I think the time has long since passed when this parliament should have had more consideration for those who are sent here by the people" as their representatives to serve the country' in the making of its laws and in protecting the financial, human and other resources of the nation. I say that it is better to do something, albeit late, than never at all. The measure is either right in

Senate and House of Commons
itself or it is not. If it is right in itself, it is timely, and I for one am quite prepared to say that it is most timely at this particular moment.
That brings me to say a few words to the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) who has been, with one exception, the only one that has been critical of this measure. First of all may I say to him and to the house that he and I have known each other for a long time, and that like all who know him I think we will agree as to his sincerity and deep convictions, and I would hope that no one would question those in any particular. But may I say to my hon. friend that he too knows us, that when he talks about convictions he ought to be prepared to attribute to all other hon. members the same motives and the same convictions as he is crediting himself with. That he did not do. I was sorry when I heard him say that when it came to a choice between conviction and comfort that he preferred conviction. I think on reflection my hon. friend will regret that he made that remark. So far as I am concerned I propose to deal with him and with other hon. members in precisely the same way, namely, in the belief that each in his action at this time either in supporting this measure by word openly in the House of Commons, or in giving acquiescence in silence, is acting from honourable motives and profound conviction.
My hon. friend said this morning that I had mentioned yesterday that one of the purposes of the increased allowance to members was to attract the best type of member to parliament. He then looked over the House of Commons and said that he thought we had here the best house that had existed for some time. I agree with him in that. I believe the calibre of members of this house is as high as, if not higher than, that of any House of Commons in any of the other parliament of Canada. But may I say that that does not mean that we might not have had in this parliament to-day many other hon. members who would have been ih an exceptional position to give of the benefit of their wide experience to the country at this time if before the last election took place there had been something more in the way of an allowance to members of parliament. I know of my own personal experience that I tried my best, but tried in vain, to have certain members of my own party who had served in parliament and who had had wide experience in public affairs to run again. I could not get them to run, not because they expected they would be defeated-they would have been elected beyoDd any doubt-but

for the reason that they felt, knowing what thear expenses had become, what it had cost them in their personal obligations, in their businesses or practice or the like, they could not afford in these circumstances to come back into parliament. I know what I am saying now is also true of the membership of other parties in this house. I know that their leaders have sought to get outstanding men, men of wide experience, to come into parliament, and they have met with exactly the same kind of situation as I was faced with myself.
May I say further that I know that there are members in this house to-day who came in with the belief that there was going to be an increased allowance and who are finding the situation very trying at the present time. Unless they do secure something more in the way of allowance some of them may be tempted to resign, thereby occasioning byelections in the country. That is known to many hon. members, and it ought to be known to the country.
When my hon. friend says that members [DOT]here expected to get only the same allowance as was given in the last parliament, he is not stating the situation correctly. I made an important statement in the last parliament, and repeated it during the election campaign, that if the present government were returned I would be among the first to support an increase in the indemnity of members, that if I were not in this House of Commons, I would support it anyway. Many of those who are in this house to-day accepted that statement at its face value, and came into the house expecting when they were here they would not have to serve with the allowance what it was before, but would receive an increased allowance.
Perhaps it might be as well if I were to read at once what I said in the last session of the last parliament so that no hon. member can say that I am overstating what I said or that I have in any way changed my attitude. I believe what I said at the time will go a long way toward answering much of what has been said by the two members who spoke in opposition to this measure this morning. My remarks will be found in Hansard of August 14, 1944, at page 6499. As I recall my remarks were made in the morning during the course of a debate on a number of financial matters. I said:
I cannot say whether I shall be in this House of Commons in another parliament, but if I am I will certainly be prepared to agree with lion, members who deem it advisable that in the interests of the membership of the House of Commons, the indemnity should be regarded strictly as an indemnity and not as a salary, and, therefore, not be liable to taxation.

Senate and House oj Commons
That statement was before this country in the last election. I was speaking then as a leader of a political party-the Liberal party- and if the people of the country had been opposed to the idea of an allowance to members being regarded as an indemnity and not taxable we would have heard about it on the platforms from one end of this country to the other. An effort would have been made to defeat myself and my party on that ground. I ask any hon. member in this house, did he hear any question of the kind raised by the electors in this country? I did not. I heard no opposition whatever to it, nor did they.


Mr. McIVOR:: Just the other way round.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I continue:
I believe that the independence of parliament and the independence of the members of the House of Commons is something that we must seek to maintain at all costs. I regard the amount voted as an indemnity as something intended by parliament to help secure that independence. I have before me a copy of the debate in the British House of Commons on August 10, 1911, when a statement was made by the Prime Minister of that day that at the session following the general election he would arrange for members to be paid. I should like to quote what Mr. Lloyd George, who was chancellor of the exchequer at the time, had to say in reference thereto. I shall quote his words later, but in effect he said that he believed that the House of Commons should be as representative as possible of all classes in the community, not representative merely of certain classes. He said that the British House of Commons, as then constituted was made up in a large part of those who came from the learned professions or who were wealthy: he felt that the house should be more broadly representative, that it should have members returned in larger numbers from the working classes, as they are sometimes termed, from the agricultural communities, that there should be as members more persons of talent and ability though in humble circumstances financially.
I feel strongly that at this time of all times-
And may I say there in reference to the timeliness of the present bill that I made this statement last session before the general election. I was not afraid of the timeliness because there were some difficult problems to settle in the country, because some people were not as fortunate as others. I was stating then what I thought was timely at the time, and which I believe is even more timely to-day. I continue:
I feel strongly that at this time of all times we should seek to obtain .the best possible representation in the House of Commons of Canada and have it broadened by having as many elements of the community represented as it is possible to have.
I was taking a step then, appealing to the electorate itself, if you wish to put it that way, because that is what it is when a man
speaks as a leader in parliament. I was appealing to the people to find ways and means whereby we could get the best type of man in this country to serve in its halls of parliament. Knowing the circumstances of our day, the electors would appreciate very quickly what was involved. I continue:
The other evening I expressed the hope that, in a subsequent parliament, there would be not merely business and professional men, but members chosen from among those who are in the fighting forces to-day as well as a larger representation of labour, a larger rural representation and a larger representation of women, and representatives from no particular class but chosen because of their special gifts, talents and high character. To make that possible in times like the present-
There again is your "timely" reference.
-it will be necessary that those who are chosen as candidates shall feel that they will be in a position to exercise their duties in this House of Commons in a perfectly independent way, without fear and without favour. What was found in Britain when labour began to be represented in the house was that a string was tied to its representation; members came in as members of the .labour party, but they were bound in advance to support only certain measures. They were not free agents representing the country as a whole, or even their constituencies as a whole, but representing a class. Nothing could be worse than that we should have in this country a membership composed of those who represent classes, whatever those classes may be. A member of parliament represents the people of the nation at large, all classes. The danger is this, that unless there is an indemnity that is sufficiently large to ensure independence on the part of members we are going to have this House of Commons composed increasingly of those who are so independent in means of their own, or because of their associations with powerful interests. that they will come to constitute, as compared with others, a very large section of the membership of the house. In other words, we shall have a privileged class here at a time when the world is doing the best it can-in perhaps the worst possible way-to get rid of a lot of privilege and to recognize that there is a certain equality in men regardless of the particular class to which they may belong, or their particular calling.
I would recommend those words to the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. IJerridge), who has spoken about the danger of establishing a privileged class here. If he reads over my remarks I think he will find1 that I have answered him on the point of creating privilege.
There is another danger, and that is that we shall have men elected to this House of Commons who, through the inability to secure a different type of candidate, would not be able to earn an income outside of parliament comparable with that which would be secured to them by an indemnity, or coming here, may I say, under obligation, some of them, to corporations, others to special interests, but not free agents.
Senate and House of Commons


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: "Help ourselves".


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, are we going to "help ourselves". What does the hon. member mean by "ourselves"? Does he mean himself as an individual who is looking after himself, looking after his own
private and personal interests; or does he mean himself as one who has been sent to parliament to speak for the people of Canada, and that in regard to any matter which may come up? If he wishes to preserve his independent-
Mr. MaeINNIS: The Prime Minister is asking me a question and, if he wishes me to answer it, I will do so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Very well,
Proceed.
Mr. MaeINNIS: I have listened to a great many discussions on this matter.


An hon. MEMBER:: Answer, then.
Mr. MaeINNIS: But I have never heard it discussed except from the personal point of view of the member. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) asked a minute ago what my logic would be if I had-


An hon. MEMBER:: Don't make a speech.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
Mr. MaeINNIS: Well, that is the answer.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member has only helped to emphasize his position, a position to which I am taking exception. He claims he is speaking as a person, and in relation to his own views as a person, his own affairs. I say every hon. member has to consider himself in two relationships, one as an individual who if he is to live has to earn an income, who has to support a family-if he is fortunate enough to have one-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And I say that designedly. I want hon. members to see that I am not thinking about myself at the present time. *


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have very great sympathy for men who have families of sixteen or seventeen, like some of my friends here, but who nevertheless come to serve as members of the House of Commons. And may I say the House of Commons is all the better for having them here, those with large families, because they can speak with added' authority on these questions. But the point I was seeking to emphasize is that when we speak of ourselves we have to make clear that distinction. Let me ask hon. members this question: If the men, and- the lady, who are in this chamber to-day were thinking only of themselves as individuals, and were not thinking rather of themselves as representatives of the people in parliament, how many of them would be
Senate and House of Commons

giving up what they are obliged to give up when they come to the House of Commons, which necessitates their being away from their homes, their businesses and their professions?
In large part the House of 'Commons is composed of hon. members who have important business interests and' connections, who hold* important positions in their professions and several avocations

andi who, may I say, have not infrequently been chosen by the electorate for that very reason. Do Hot forget that. Members of the House of Commons are representing people who know them; and it is amongst other reasons because their constituents believe that their member is a person who will be prepared to make sacrifices for the public good, and because they believe he understands public questions that he is sent here. I say if those members stopped and said to themselves, "Would I be richer or better off at the end of the year if I stayed at home and attended to my practice as a physician or my profession as a lawyer, or if I attended to my 'business or calling, be it what it may, instead of being a member of parliament?" the answer would be that a large percentage of members of the House of Commons would not be here to-day-and the loss would be great to the nation.
This is a distinction I wish to make clear when the hon. member asks about our looking after ourselves. I say to him that in this matter of indemnities we should not be thinking about ourselves at all as individuals who have personal obligations. We should be thinking of ourselves primarily as members of parliament, as trustees of the nation, as persons shouldering the responsibility of spending billions of dollars of the country's money, and as persons who are anxious to place ourselves in a position where, whether we deal with questions affecting the rich, the poor, or any other class, we can speak our minds without fear and without favour.
I now come to another statement the hon. member made, and one which I believe ought to be cleared up. The hon. member said that we are not granting relief to others, and that it was colossal impudence for the government to bring forward this measure at the present time when nothing was being done for those who were in ^traitened circumstances. I say it is colossal impudence on the part of the hon. member to make a statement of the kind. Not only is it colossal impudence to address the government in those terms, but it is colossal impudence to impute to the House of Commons and to parliament the suggestion that parliament has been doing nothing to relieve distress during the time it has been here.
[Mr. Mackenzie KLu^.J
I ask the hon. member if the greater part [DOT] of this session has not been devoted to considering1 ways and means whereby we can prevent-in addition to the necessity of relieving those of whom he has spoken-hundreds of thousands of people from getting into a position where they will require relief at all. The whole effort of parliament in supporting the government's policies has been to maintain a high level of employment, to maintain a national income of larger proportions, in order that we may not have to be seeking ways and means of relieving persons by the thousands, if not by the hundreds of thousands.
When we consider the policies that have been put forward, policies which have helped create in many countries throughout the world a demand for our goods, policies which have been giving employment which would not otherwise have existed; when one thinks of what has been done for families by distributing to every home where there is young children means whereby they will not feel the distress which otherwise they would feel; when one thinks of what parliament has done in preventing inflation; I say that when one considers these policies, apart from many others, one will see at once that the hon, member is wrong in what he says. I am not crediting the government with this; I am saying that that is what the parliament of Canada has done-and it was the parliament of Canada about which my hon. friend was talking when he spoke in terms of "colossal impudence". I say parliament has recognized its great obligation to the nation, and has recognized it in a magnificent way-and I am speaking irrespective of any party in the house, and giving credit to every representative in the two houses of parliament.
Perhaps I have spoken at sufficient length. Let me say this, however: When the hon. member says that this measure is camouflage, then I think he had better give second thought to that expression. I am not camouflaging in the words I am using, but when I saw my hon. friend having to read much of his speech, and look to his notes to give a list of the difficulties that he said people were experiencing, a lack of this and a lack of that, then refer to his papers to see what else he could bring up that would help to raise prejudice in the minds of many in this country, I began to think there was some camouflage in the speech which he had made.
May I say this one word in conclusion. My hon. friend has said that, the men who come into this parliament would be better members if they themselves had suffered from privation or poverty. I take no issue with him on that whatever, provided that they come in

Senate and House of Commons
with the wisdom that ought to be bom of an experience of the kind, without bitterness or prejudice, and prepared thereby to help to make things better for others. But I ask myself: Is the desire to help others the monopoly of the very few? What is the motive that has brought into parliament ninety per cent, if not ninety-nine per cent, of the members that are in this house to-day. There doubtless are exceptions, but I would say that the motive above every other was a desire to help their fellow men and improve conditions for the great body of people in the country. I believe that with most men who go into public life that is the actuating motive, and I do not care whether a member is as well to do as Crcesus, or as poor as a mouse-


An hon. MEMBER:: A church mouse.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend says "church mouse". I do believe that the motive in the hearts of most men here, men whose families*have been willing to have them leave their homes to go to serve their country in parliament, is that they may help to improve conditions for others.
Somewhere along the path of life sacrifice has played its part in the making of men. I have been fortunate in having had parents who made sacrifices for me. I would not be here to-day; I would not be in public life today except for the sacrifices of' others. This has made it possible for me to take the part I have taken in public life. I do not forget that before my parents, there were others of theirs who had experienced terrific hardships in seeking to defend freedom and the liberties of the people and to improve the lot of the great masses of the people. I believe it is true that there is not a member of this house who when he looks back into the past will not find that in his early days he has suffered something in the way of privation or distress or that those before him of his own had not known privation and in whose heart there is not as a consequence a desire to improve things for others. Love for and a readiness to help the poor is not a monopoly of a chosen few. We all come by it in one way or another. My mother's father, who himself had suffered exile and imprisonment for causes in which he believed, once said, speaking of the early experiences of his life:
Well may I love the poor, greatly may I esteem the humble and the lowly, for poverty and adversity were my nurses, and in youth were want and misery my familiar friends; even now it yields a sweet satisfaction .to my soul, that I can claim kindred with the obscure cottar, and the humble labourer, of my native, ever honoured ever loved Scotland.
Those words have gone deeply into my soul, more so than any other words I have ever heard or read. I have tried to be true to the trust they have imposed on me. In them will be found the motive which has kept me in public life and I believe a kindred motive has, to a greater or less extent, helped to bring into public life every man and woman in this house.
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-Expense allowance to members of the Senate and the House of Commons.


Angus MacInnis: When the hon. member for Peace River was speaking he said he was imagining things; he said he was imagining what my logic would be if I had a family of six children. I doubt if that is a matter of logic, but apparently the assumption is that I do not have responsibilities. I took the responsibility for my parents and brought them from my home ih eastern Canada to western Canada when I left there. I assumed those responsibilities and the responsibility for other relatives and I am doing that still. No* one has any business to ask what my logic would be under circumstances such as these. This follows up the answer I gave to the question of the Prime Minister a moment ago. The hon. member for Peace River wanted to know what my logic would be if my vote were to decide this measure. A man may have a mind which has come to the level where he considers whether he will cast a vote on the basis of whether a thing is going to carry or not carry, but I never had a mind like that, and I do not know just what to reply.
The leader of this group informed me a long time ago that he had discussed this matter with the Prime Minister. I told him then in no uncertain terms what my position would be. He told me that he had informed the Prime Minister that so far as this group was concerned we were not unanimous in our opinion.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is true.


Angus MacInnis: When men have minds, if you can call them minds, like the hon. member for Peace River, it does not matter.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. HANSELL:: When the resolution was before us I had occasion- to talk the matter over with a number of lion, members and I
National Emergency

found they were of the opinion, that the increase should be paid on a monthly basis. I notice that this section reads:
This allowance shall be paid at the end of
each calendar year-
I was wondering if the government had any particular reason for doing that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We considered that very carefully but we found it would be extremely difficult to make the payments on a monthly basis because we would not know until the end of the session what the attendance of members had been, and attendance on sessional duties is an important factor in payment of the allowance.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
\
Bill reported.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING moved the third reading of the bill.
Angus MacInnis: On division.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Two against.
"Motion agreed to on division and bill read the third time and passed.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.



SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1M5-46

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1946, was presented by Hon. J. L. Usley (Minister of Finance) read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to bill No. 15, to confer certain transitional powers upon the governor in council during the national emergency arising out of the war.
He said: There were two amendments made to the emergency powers bill in the senate. One of them is a decided clarification whioh

will be valuable in the interpretation of the . act. It is to add at the end of the act the following:
In this act "war with Germany and Japan" means the war that commenced on the tenth day of September, 1939, against the German reich and subsequently against Italy, Finland, Hungary, Roumania and Japan.
This is for the purpose of making it apparent that when we speak of "the end of the war with Germany and Japan" we mean the end of the war with all those who were allied with them over the past years.'
The other amendment, I thought, was not at all necessary but it certainly is not harmful. It is, to insert after the words "orders and regulations" in section 4 and before the words "made under the War Measures Act" the word "lawful". It read1 before:
the orders and regulations made under the War Measures Act or pursuant to authority created under the said act in force immediately before the day this act comes into force shall . . . continue in full force-	'
It was felt that there might be some suggestion that this was validating things which had not been lawfully made. My view was that if they had not been lawfully made they were not in force, because when the question goes before the courts, it is not to annul an order but it is to get a declaration that it never was validly made and therefore has no possible legal operation. But the insertion of the word "lawfully" cannot make any embarrassing. change. Now it will read "orders and regulations lawfully made under the War Measures Act".
I think that this house could very well accept the amendments which have thus "been made.
John Bracken: We offer no objections to the proposed changes in the bill.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.



TRUST COMPANIES ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee on bill No. 231, to amend the Trust Companies Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Brelton Woods Agreements

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee on bill No. 241, to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee on. bill No. 242, to amend the Foreign Insurance Companies Act, 1932.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed. BRETTON WOODS AGREEMENTS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee on bill No. 238, for carrying into effect the agreements for an international monetary fund and an international bank for reconstruction and development.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. BLACKMORE:: I believe there should be more careful investigation into this act than it has already had. Since we were last considering the bill in this house it has been in the hands of the banking and commerce committee where members have been examining two witnesses, namely, Mr. Rasminsky and to some extent Mr. Mackintosh.
A good deal of information was elicited in the committee, as a result of the consideration of which I think we shall probably be able to judge better what attitude we should take with respect to the bill.
One important thing has occurred since we were discussing the matter in the house and in the committee, namely, that the British house has accepted Bretton Woods. Hon. members will recall that I said at one stage in the discussion, in fact at several stages, that the British house was being clubbed into the acceptance of Bretton Woods. More than a few members have taken me to task for having made that statement. I believe that some of the recent pronouncements from Britain will have a bearing on the matter and I wonder therefore if hon. members will bear with me while I read into the record some of the recent utterances on the question.
The radio to-day, I am informed, carries several important statements, for instance:
Churchill asks the Conservatives to refrain from votes, as a heavy vote would hurt British interests in the United States.
This information is contained also in the Ottawa Journal of to-day.
May I examine that statement for a moment or two? Churchill asks the Conservatives to refrain from voting. May I ask hon. members if any one of them supposes that Churchill would have done that had he considered the Bretton Woods agreement to be in the interests of Great Britain, or of the British empire, or of the world? Would anyone suspect Winston Churchill, the great war prime minister, of having played politics to the extent of depriving the world of so great a benefit as some of the advocates of Bretton Woods have tried to make us believe is to be derived from the agreement?
There is another important aspect to that statement. Obviously the Conservatives in Great Britain, if they had voted on the measure, would have voted against the acceptance of Bretton WcSods; for Mr. Churchill says that a heavy vote would have hurt British interests in the United States. Already there was a heavy enough vote. If this house succeeds in rolling up as heavy an adverse vote as the British house did, fifty voting actively against it, this house will do a good deal better than it has thus far shown signs of intending to do. If this house can have relatively as large a proportion of its members refraining from voting for Bretton Woods as refrained from voting in Britain, the results again will be impressive and much more optimistic for those who oppose Bretton Woods than I feel justified in expecting here.
There is another important implication in the statement, namely, that Churchill seems to suspect that in the United States administration there is an attitude which would cause that administration to take steps that would be retaliatory against Great Britain, adversely
Bretton Woods Agreements

affecting the interests of Britain in the United States. As just one common member of this house trying to think his way .through this whole thing, I ask sincerely, in the light of that statement, does anyone suppose that Britain was not clubbed into accepting Bretton Woods?
Right after Mr. Churchill made that remark a foreign minister said that the statement was a libel on the administration of the United States. This remark would tend to indicate that my interpretation of Churchill's statement is correct, namely, that in that statement he definitely implied that a heavy vote would adversely affect Great Britain's interest. By that remark he implied that certain people in the United States administration would take punitive measures against Great Britain's interest in the United States.
Another thing that came over the air greatly impressed me as worthy of the consideration of every member of this committee. In commenting the London papers said that the terms were harsh, but there was no alternative.


Major James William Coldwell: Terms of what?-the Bretton Woods agreement or the new loan?


John Horne Blackmore: If the loan had not been bound up with the Bretton Woods agreement there could hardly have been any harshness in the terms of the loan. You must draw the conclusion that the Bretton Woods agreement, being tied up with the loan, was what constituted the harsh terms. I see no other conclusion.


Major James William Coldwell: Oh, yes, certainly there is another conclusion.


John Horne Blackmore: The member for Rose-town-Biiggar has the right to suggest what it is.
Mir. COLDWELL,: I have suggested it before.


John Horne Blackmore: Suppose he suggest it now for the record, so that I can deal with it.


Major James William Coldwell: Make your speech.


John Horne Blackmore: I expected that would be the answer.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, 1 can reply to it, but I am not going to prolong the hon. member's speech.


John Horne Blackmore: I expected that would be the rejoinder, too. I am getting so I can forecast the remarks of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar.


Major James William Coldwell: That is good.


Mr. WRIGHT:: After they have been made.


John Horne Blackmore: As further information bearing on this whole general question may I read into the record for the benefit of the future, if not for the benefit of any hon. members of the house, a report from London dated December 13, as found on page 2 of the Ottawa Citizen of the same date. This is a report by Basil Dean, a special Evening Citizen correspondent, and copyrighted by the Southam Press:
The British parliament this evening will vote approval of the Washington loan agreement. But it will accept it in the grudging manner of a man who knows he is paying too much for something he desperately needs and can get from no other source. This much is clear from the attitude of government spokesmen, labour backbenchers, and Conservative opposition members in the commons debate which is now going on.
The government obviously likes the terms of the agreement no better than anyone else-
That should be interesting to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. I continue:
[DOT]-but knt>ws from records of Washington talks that they aTe the best that can be obtained. The Conservatives are not enamoured of them either, but in the absence of any alternative plan to ease the nation's desperate plight, are abstaining from to-night's division so that they will have their hands free to criticize if need be later on.
In the light of that statement we might conclude that they were going to play politics, but in the light of the statement which I have recently read they were not playing politics so much as would be indicated by this statement. I continue:
Some labour members are bitterly opposed to the loan because they think it will hog-tie the socialist programme and they are being left to vote according to their consciences.
Only Lord Beaverbrook has a plan all cut and dried. In his newspapers he is urging rejection of the loan so that Britain can retire into empire free trade-
I feel that the idea in mind there is the Bretton Woods proposals. The article goes on:
-and use the immense internal commerce of the commonwealth as ,a bargaining weapon to exact liberal trading terms from foreign nations -including the United States.
But Bea verb rook's cause is lost. It is not even getting the support of the Conservative party which negotiated the Ottawa agreements of 1932 and placed Britain's trading on a limited imperial preference basis. It is conceded that the Beaverbrook plan would be the only alternative to the American loan. But no party can bring itself to face the bleak prospect of prolongation and probable tightening of austerity living which must result if the loan is rejected.
So, with a feeling that they are signing part of the nation's birthright away, Britain's legislators to-day are accepting the inevitable.
That hardly leaves any doubt as to whether or not Britain is being clubbed into accepting Bretton Woods. I believe that gives real

Bretton Woods Agreements
reason to hon. members for reconsidering the whole question of Bretton Woods and the bill which is based upon it.
May I refer to two or three things which have occurred in this debate and in the country so that we might more successfully examine the bill and the Bretton Woods proposals now before us. In the minister's speech we were told that the issue involved in Bretton Woods, and presumably in the bill based upon it is this:	Shall we have peace? May
I read from the minister's remarks as they appear on page 3040 of Hansard'.
That issue is: are we and other countries to organize and cooperate for peace, or is each nation going to use its strength and resources at the expense of others in a struggle for survival?
We have been told that the principle of this bill, which was given second reading by the house, was international cooperation to prevent us from getting into economic troubles in the future. Just to make sure that I am not misinterpreting, may I read from the words of the Minister of Finance in reply to a statement of the hon. member for Souris, as they appear on page 3218 of Hansard:
Yes. The principle would be international cooperation to prevent us from getting into economic troubles in the future.
Well, apparently Britain does not feel very confident that she is going to keep out of economic troubles through signing the thing, but that is the stand of the Minister of Finance, couched in his own words. The government's reason for supporting this bill T think is to be gathered from the white pape-issued to the house in April, 1945, by the Minister of Reconstruction, on page 7 of which I find these words:
It would outlaw the discriminatory currency practices which turned trade into economic warfare.
This is the guidance and direction we have up to the present time in our study of thi bill and the Bretton Woods proposal.
It seems to me highly desirable that we should define our terms with some accuracy at this point. Just what are the discriminatory practices, and what is economic war? It will be recalled by all hon. members. I believe, that President Wilson made a statement to the effect that military war always resulted from hot commercial rivalry or economic war. Consequently if by any means we could prevent economic war we might hope to rid ourselves of military war. So the statement in the government white paper on the face of it looks rather attractive. Let us see if we can determine for ourselves what economic warfare is and what are these discriminatory practices. May I read from the statement of the Minister
of Finance again, because I thought he gave a good definition of these discriminatory practices at page 3041 of Hansard, referring to the depression:
The result was the stangulation of world trade and the mutual impoverishment of all countries. The characteristic features of world economic relationships before the war were high and discriminatory tariffs, import quotas, export subsidies, depreciated currencies of uncertain value, discriminatory clearing agreements, multiple currency practices.
It would appear, then, that the reason' the government proposes to support Bretton AVoods and is so desperately anxious for us to approve it is that it will render all such things as the minister has mentioned illegal, or at least will tend to eliminate them. Just to bolster up the minister's words, to some extent, by another authority, may I refer to the speech of Henry Morgenthau, Junior, delivered before the delegates to Bretton Woods, which appears on page 9 of the proceedings of the united nations monetary and financial conference, which I obtained from the House of Commons library. Referring to Bretton Woods he said:
This is the alternative to the desperate tactics of the past-competitive currency depreciation, excessive tariff barriers, uneconomic barter deals, multiple currency practices and unnecessary exchange restrictions-by which governments vainly sought to maintain employment and uphold living standards. In the final analysis these tactics only succeeded in contributing to world-wide depression and even war. The international fund agreed upon at Bretton Woods will help remedy this situation.
It will be noticed that Mr. Morgenthau's remarks are not quite so positive and far-reaching as the statement in the government white paper, and are probably just about the same as the remarks of the minister, as to certainty. I am desirous of being completely fair, because here I am endeavouring to conduct a cold-blooded, intellectual inquiry into this whole matter, entirely devoid of passion and strong feeling. AVe have the sort of things that are called trade restrictions. What is economic warfare? May I read to hon. members again the statement in the government white paper, which I fancy is of importance to us because I presume it was written by some of the officials, by Mr. Rasminskv, by Mr. Mackintosh, or perhaps Doctor Clark or perhaps several others. Referring to Bretton Woods it says:
It would outlaw the discriminatory currency practices which turned trade into economic war.
I desire to examine the truthfulness and accuracy of that statement. In order to do so I wish first to get an idea for us to work on as to what economic warfare is and while I do
Bretton Woods Agreements

this I am going to ask hon. members to consider with me the relationships between Canada and the United States to see if we can find out what would constitute economic warfare between these two countries. There must be danger of it. If any hon. member deems that I go astray as I explore this matter I would really appreciate having my attention drawn to the fact. It is well known that Canada has used tariffs for generations. Why does Canada use tariffs against goods coming in from the United States? I think everyone would agree that we use these tariffs for two reasons, first in order to derive revenue therefrom, but perhaps mainly, though I will not be dogmatic on the matter, to keep out of the Canadian market goods from the United States. Canada realizes that if United States shoes, we will say, come into the Canadian market and are sold at a rate below that for which Canadian shoes can be sold, they are the shoes that will be bought and the Canadian product will be left unused; Canadian factories will be in danger of closing and Canadian workmen will be in danger of being thrown out of employment. I wonder if that is right. Then why did Canada raise tariffs against the United States? To protect Canada against United States industrial penetration into Canada. What was that United States industrial penetration? What was the United States doing when she sent goods into Canada to sell for less than the same goods could be produced for here? Was she engaging in economic warfare? If she was not will someone tell me to what extent she was not? If she were allowed to go on sending American goods of all kinds into Canada how long would it be before a vast percentage of the Canadian people would be unemployed, a vast percentage of Canadian wealth would be destroyed, and a vast amount of Canadian revenue would be lost? In other words, economically Canada would be conquered if she did not put up the tariff. May I ask hon. members if any one of them believes that Canada, when she raised the tariff against United States goods coming into Canada, was engaged in economic warfare? Will anyone assert that she was? Hardly. Canada was simply protecting herself against United States economic warfare, was she not?
Let us turn to one of the other trade restric-. tions, namely, foreign exchange control. As is well known, during the war Canada has used foreign exchange control with great wisdom and with great success. What for? It was to prevent too much of United States goods and services from coming into Canada during the war. If I am wrong, will someone tell me. There was a pressure for United States goods
[Mr. Blackmore.l
to enter Canada, even during the war, and if we had not used exchange control and tariffs during the war we would have emerged from it with Canadian industry virtually destroyed. In other words, we should have emerged economically conquered by the United States. Will anyone argue that the foreign exchange control which we exercised during the war was a species of economic warfare? Or, again, was it not a measure designed by Canada for protection from economic warfare?
Let me turn to one further point. In the discussions on this important question I have already referred to what Japan did in 1933 and 1934. She was able to sell for about $5.75 or $6 bicycles for which we would have charged $50 in Canada.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


John Horne Blackmore: No wonder the hon. member feels like calling "carried-", after that. It must be getting pretty hard to stand.


Mr. FOURNIER (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: You are right.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, the truth is hard to stand, and especially under these circumstances.
Will anyone argue that Canada should have gone on permitting Japan to sell not only toys and many other things, but bicycles and every other kind of commodity she could produce on a rice standard of living? Would anyone argue that Canada should have allowed those goods to come into this country, thereby displacing Canadian goods and destroying Canadian industry? What did Canada use as a means of preventing any such mishap? She used the quota, did she not, which in effect was an embargo? When Canada used the quota, will anyone argue that she was engag-. ing in economic warfare against Japan? Or was she merely protecting her economy against Japanese economic warfare? I suggest the answer is obvious. She was merely protecting her economy against Japanese economic warfare.
It becomes necessary for Canada from time to time to protect herself against United States economic warfare by means of quotas. There have been times when the United States has endeavoured to dump goods in Canada.
I might refer in that connection to my own constituency, and give an example which hon. members will readily recognize. In the southern part of my constituency strawberries and other small fruits are produced. The growers depend upon the Canadian market. United States growers just across the boundary line, about a hundred miles away, are able to produce the same fruits about two weeks
i

Bretton Woods Agreements
earlier. If we did not do something in the matter United States growers would send their berries into Canada, thereby supplying the Canadian market and filling cellars upon which Canadian producers depend for their market. Obviously that would be a most destructive procedure for Canadian growers. So what do we use? We use anti-dumping laws. What are they? They are a species of quota. Is that economic warfare against the United States?


Mr. ZAPLITNY:: Would a Social Credit government impose embargoes against imports of goods? Does the hon. member favour that method of preventing goods from coming in?


John Horne Blackmore: I wonder if the hon. member would permit me to answer after I have finished my argument. I shall be happy tc answer it, but just now I am examining the soundness of the government's statement in the white paper that trade restrictions turn trade into economic warfare. I am now asking whether an anti-dumping law, which is a species of quota, was a species of economic warfare, or whether it was a protection against economic warfare from another country. I think all must agree that it was a species of protection against economic warfare.
We have now dealt w'ith three of those undesirable restrictions against trade. Is there any hon. member who would say that he would oppose Canada's use of any of these three restrictions as a means of protecting her economy? I doubt it. And yet apparently Bretton Woods, from the statement of Henry Morgenthau, the statement contained in the Canadian white paper, and the implications which can be drawn from the statement of the Minister of Finance as I have quoted it, is designed to render it less possible to use these protective devices against economic warfare. Would anyone vote for a measure which would render it impossible or less possible for Canada to use these trade restrictions?
It is well known to all hon. members that as soon as the trade balance between Canada and the United States becomes adverse to the extent that Canada is in real danger, the Canadian dollar, if allowed to fluctuate naturally in accordance with the law of supply and demand, will go down in relation to the United States dollar. That is, it will fall in value. What is that fall in value? It is currency depreciation, is it not? It is impossible to get the facts in connection with this matter, but I believe I am correct in saying that the government to-day is deliberately and designedly maintaining the Canadian dollar at a value lower than the United States dollar, largely to keep from having too much
United States goods coming into Canada, and thereby disturbing the Canadian balance of trade position.
Will anyone argue that we should not be free to allow our dollar to fall in value, as compared with the United States dollar, to protect our economy against United States goods? Will anyone argue against the soundness of currency depreciation as a means of protecting our economy against economic warfare with the United States? I doubt very' seriously whether anyone in the committee would do anything that would put Canada in a position in which she could not be free to use currency depreciation, in the event of its being necessary, in order to protect her economy against economic warfare. I do not think any hon. member would venture to say that in allowing that action to be taken Canada would be engaging in economic warfare against the United States. In the light of the four illustrations which I have used, namely, tariffs, foreign exchange control, quotas and currency devaluation; in the light of those four and of the four illustrations, would anyone in this house argue for a moment that Canada in using those four would be engaging in economic warfare?
Take the government's statement in this white paper, which I read once more:
It would outlaw the discriminatory currency practices which turned trade into economic warfare.
It is true that all that is mentioned there is currency practices, and the devaluation of the dollar is only one of those. As I have read in Morgenthau's remarks, and in the minister's remarks in his introductory speech, other trade restrictions are intended; so perhaps I would be justified in reading that statement from the government paper in some such way as this: It would outlaw .the discriminatory currency practices and other trade restrictions which turned trade into economic warfare. If I am doing too much violence to the sense of the statement, the minister will correct me, or Mr. Mackintosh, who I notice is in the chamber ready to assist the minister.
Z I wish to examine that statement in the light of the facts. Will anyone in the light of what I have said argue that trade restrictions such as tariffs, exchange control, depreciation of currency and quotas would turn trade into economic warfare? Would anyone in this chamber accept that for a moment? Is it not rather tfue that economic warfare brings on trade restrictions, tariffs, depreciation of currencies, quotas and exchange controls? From what I have said I think it must be clear that the statement made in the government white paper is an absolute eco-
Bretton Woods Agreements

nomic fallacy. Apparently the government's policy with regard to Bretton Woods is based on an economic fallacy. Apparently that was not by accident, because the passage in the minister's speech to which I referred carries the same idea. May I read it again? He said:
The result was the strangulation of world trade and the mutual impoverishment of all countries. The characteristic features of world . economic relationships before the war were high and discriminatory tariffs, import quotas, export subsidies, depreciated currencies of uncertain value, discriminatory clearing agreements, multiple currency practices.
May I read the words following that statement where the minister continues:
I am certain that in no quarter of the house is there a desire to see the world return to these pre-war practices. But if the nations of the world are left to their own devices and are not bound together in an association of mutual advantage which will set certain standards for its members, they will in my opinion inevitably revert to the practices I have described.
The minister will correct me if I draw a false conclusion. The conclusion I am drawing is that the minister was endeavouring to argue in favour of the adoption of Bretton Woods on the ground that it would prevent these practices. Does anyone in this house wish to see the nations tied to an agreement that will render it impossible for the various nations to use such measures as are at their disposal to protect their economy against economic warfare? We have been told time and again by certain men in this chamber that Canada will derive much benefit from Bretton Woods. I ask hon. members if they think Canada will derive much benefit from an agreement that would render her unable to keep up tariffs to protect her own industries, unable to adopt foreign exchange control in case of need, unable to apply quotas and anti-dumping duties, unable to allow her dollar to fall in relation to her neighbour's dollar; would anyone consider that a measure that prevented her from using those would be a measure in the interest of Canada, that from the application of such a measure Canada would derive any benefit?
Let us leave Canada for a while. Let us remember that Canada is just one of the weaker economies. As a result of her war effort, Britain has become another weaker economy. That is why it is of such desperate seriousness to Britain that the Bretton Woods agreement is forced upon her at the present time. Evident^ Britain understands that when Bretton Woods is applied to her it will be impossible for her to use the tariff to keep out United States goods if she wishes to keep them out. impossible for her to use quotas,
	,
impossible for her to use foreign exchange control, and impossible for her to use depreciation of currency.


Mr. CLEAVER:: Would the hon. member be good enough to read the portions of the Bretton Woods agreements which he claims substantiate his argument?


John Horne Blackmore: I can do that.


Hughes Cleaver: I would say that there are no such provisions in the agreements.


John Horne Blackmore: Will the hon. member for Halton tell us why the government's white paper gives as one reason for supporting Bretton Woods the fact that it will do just that thing? Will the hon. meftiber for Halton tell us why Henry Morgenthau advocated the acceptance of Bretton Woods because it would do that very thing? Will anyone tell me why the Minister of Finance in his speech opening the debate implied that the main reason for adopting Bretton Woods was that it would do that very thing?


Hughes Cleaver: Does the hon. member wish me to answer?


John Horne Blackmore: Yes. We are here to get information.


Hughes Cleaver: I do not want the hon. member to take offence at my answer, but he has asked so many questions on premises which he himself asserts but which in reality are not facts that I do not feel free to answer any of them.


John Horne Blackmore: Will the hon. member for Halton say that Henry Morgenthau did not say, in the passage I read from his speech to the delegates at Bretton Woods, that Bretton Woods would prevent or help to prevent these trade restrictions?


Hughes Cleaver: The hon. member will have to put his own interpretation on that.


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member is putting his interpretation on it and the hon. member for Hajton finds it impossible to dispute his words.


Hughes Cleaver: I thought it was quite a reasonable request, and I did not make it with the idea of stirring up any contentious discussion. I simply asked a plain question-if the hon. member would be good enough to read any term of the Bretton Woods agreements which would support the argument he has made to the committee.


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member has asked me to read from Bretton Woods. Will the hon. member tell the committee that the

Bretton Woods Agreements
Bretton Woods agreement is not designed to prevent these trade restrictions?


Hughes Cleaver: I will say this, and say it quite frankly to my hon. friend: I have read the agreements carefully. Will the members of the Social Credit party point to any term of either of these agreements which would lead to such a conclusion? I have yet to hear any member of the party point to any provision in either of these agreements as substantiating the charges he has now made.
Mr. BL-ACKMORE: Then I suppose hon. members of all parties, except perhaps the Liberals, and probably half of them, realize that the hon. member for Halton's statement has convicted the Minister of Finance of misrepresenting Bretton Woods, and he has also convicted Henry Morgenthau of misrepresenting Bretton Woods, and further he has convicted the government white paper of misrepresenting Bretton Woods. You see what the government white paper says.


Hughes Cleaver: But you do not answer the question.


Mr. KUHL:: Neither do you.


John Horne Blackmore: The argument is so overwhelming that any ordinary man must
see it.


Hughes Cleaver: The hon, member has not answered me, because he cannot point to any item in the agreements which will lead to that conclusion.


John Horne Blackmore: If there is no term in the agreement-I am not saying whether there is or is not, but I have a reason for bringing this point out-it must be quite obvious to all hon. members that there is not a doubt in the world that the Minisfer of Finance endeavoured to convey to the members of this house the impression that Bretton Woods would tend to remove these trade restrictions.


Hughes Cleaver: By mutual consultation between the nations, and the like,


Ernest George Hansell: What do you need the act for, then?


Mr. HLYNKA:: Don't let him get you off the track.


John Horne Blackmore: He is not getting me off the track; the only person getting off the track is the hon. member for Halton himself. He will never succeed; he has tried that before. Let me read once more what is said in the government white paper, which was the first official government pronouncement after Bretton Woods:
Having regard to the widespread character of our trade, the government attaches special importance .also to the reconstitution of multilateral trade on a firm basis and arrangements under which the proceeds of our exports may be spent wherever we desire to obtain our imports. '
I am reading these words so that no one will suppose I am taking the statement out of its context.
It .is with these objects in mind that the government has participated in the development of the plans for the international monetary fund and the united nations bank of reconstruction and development on which agreement among experts was reached at Bretton Woods in July last.
The monetary fund plan would assure comparative stability of exchange rates and, where change was desirable, would substitute for competitive depreciation of exchanges an orderly process of change following international consultation. It would outlaw the discriminatory currency practices which turned trade into economic warfare. When it was fully in operation, it would .assure the convertibility of the proceeds of our sales abroad into whatever currencies we required for our current needs.
I think I need read no more. Certainly the idea is definitely conveyed there that Bretton Woods would "outlaw" certain practices. I wonder if an agreement which is made by a number of people meeting together with their feet under the table can be called "outlawing". The word outlaw is a very strong word to use there. It refers to the kind of thing that a king may do when he is dealing with a citizen. We do not use the word commonly nowadays. I think the hon. member for Halton will have to confess that if there is not in the Bretton Woods agreement a stipulation or a collection of stipulations or an arrangement of stipulations, all through this highly complex and highly complicated affair, which would enable us to prevent these trade restrictions, then both Henry Morgenthau and the Minister of Finance have misrepresented Bretton Woods.


Hughes Cleaver: That is not true.


John Horne Blackmore: I think all hon. members can quite clearly see that the administration is in a pretty awkward position if all these gentlemen who have advocated Bretton Woods-.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. I must remind the hon. member that his time has expired.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, I did not rise to speak upon this matter, but to make an observation only. The hon. member for Halton is, if I am not mistaken, a lawyer.
I think he is in danger of looking at this agreement as though he were sitting on the bench, as though the agreement were in force and he had to make a decision. The difference between that attitude and that of parliament is this: when you are passing a bill you must
Bretton Woods Agreements

look at it from a certain point of view; you must regard it in the light of all its possible results. So when we are considering a matter of this kind we are compelled to say: Now, if this measure passes will it have this result, or will it have some other result? This is exactly what we are doing; and we are contending that it will have certain results. Whether a thing is stipulated1 in a cfertain clause or not is not the point; and I think the hon. member's question is a very poor one indeed.


Mr. FRASER:: As a member of the banking and commerce committee which studied these proposals I should like to say a few words. This committee sat in the railway room of the House of Commons, during what was zero weather outside and nearly zero inside. The committee sat about seven hours a day and really did good work trying to understand1 these proposals. But I do not think it had sufficient time to study them thoroughly and to examine enough witnesses, because we were told that this measure had to pass parliament before December 31. We called two witnesses; they were very good witnesses, but I believe we should have had more, and I am not satisfied that the committee got all the information that it should have had.
One thing which we were told in the committee and which, I think, we have to bear in mind when we are dealing with these_ proposals, is that their main object is to provide a healthier framework for better trading relations. That is a condition which we must have in this world if we are to have peace, and I hope and pray that we shall have peace for some years to come.
At the present time it looks as though Canada and other countries might have a depression, or perhaps a condition of unemployment, owing to the fact that it requires time to change over from war to peace. What is necessary is not only reconversion of industry but reconversion of our employees and readjustment of the plans that private industry has in Canada at the present time, with the throwing off of many of the controls which have been holding down industry during the war years. There is every possibility that within the next five years industry in Canada will spend at least $3,000 million of new money in expanding industries and establishing new ones, and I feel that these Bretton Woods agreements may assist in enabling Canada to dispose of the goods which these industries will produce.
After reading the final act and the bill which we have before us, I am going to be quite honest and say that I am still foggy

on some of the articles of the bill and of the final act. I am quite sure, as I said yesterday morning in the banking and commerce committee, that there are probably not more than half a dozen members of this parliament who thoroughly understand these agreements and proposals. I also said that even if they said they did, I doubted it. We had two witnesses before the committee, both expert financial men, who gave excellent evidence. They knew their stuff. Even those witnesses had to be prompted a few times; one would have to inform the other on certain things. Nevertheless they were good, and they answered any questions that were put to them, or volunteered to get the information. The member for Lethbridge asked questions; the witnesses said they would get the information and hand it in, and I imagine they looked it up in the office. I asked questions, und one of the witnesses kindly passed them on to the chairman of the committee. The chairman, I may say, did a really good job; he never squeezed us out if we wanted to get information. But these experts, financial wizards I suppose one should call them, were not quite sure of themselves on some questions. I feel that even the Minister of Finance would not know all the answers to questions we could ask him.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Do you think so?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I do think so. At the same time I wish to give these witnesses the ,highest praise. They did a good job. The Bretton Woods agreement will help Canada. There is no doubt about that.


John Horne Blackmore: How?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: "How" and "why" are words we all use, and we like to get an answer when we use them. I feel that while the Bretton Woods agreement may not be a cure-all-


John Horne Blackmore: It does not cure anything.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: -there is not a man m this house who is not willing to accept it. There is not a man here who is not willing to go out and buy a ticket to help some society. He takes a chance on this, that, and the other thing, and here we have to take a chance too. Canada must take a chance on this.


An hon. MEMBER:: It takes the rap on it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No. It is not taking the rap, but it has to take a chance.


John Horne Blackmore: It is a pig in a poke.

Bretton Woods Agreements


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is not a pig in a poke, because there is something solid behind it. It is the very best that the experts of all the countries had to offer.


John Horne Blackmore: Pretty bad best.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Well, there is no alternative. We must try these things. Members should vote for it.


John Horne Blackmore: Sight unseen.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Members of parliament had a chance to read the agreement and try to understand the different phases of it, and to understand the bank. I did not interrupt the hon. gentleman-


John Horne Blackmore: I beg, the hon.
member's pardon.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: -and I will add that he. contributed a good deal to the discussion. I did not agree with everything he said, though there were many things he said that appealed to me. This afternoon again he has said many things with which I agree and others I do not agree with. And I am hard to convince; the chairman of the committee knows that. Last night there was one little phase of a question that I was trying to get straight in my mind, and the witness, Mr. Rasminsky. was kind enough to enlighten me.
I am going to vote for this measure because I see no alternative. I think it will help Canada. It appears to me to be partly on the gold standard, and if it is, it certainly will help the country. Anything that will help Canada I am for. Therefore, Mr. Chairman * I am going to vote for it.


Mr. CASE:: My contribution will be more in the form of an inquiry. We have not all had the advantage of listening to the experts iu the committee, but I presume the matter was fully threshed out there and no one will expect me to have at my command a working knowledge of the subject. I notice that Canada's contribution to the fund will amount in the aggregate to $700 million. Is that $350 million to one part of the plan and $350 million to another?


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is $325 million to the bank and $300 million to the fund in American dollars.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: That possibly answers the
question I had in mind as to what the form of the deposit was. how we would provide our deposit fund, and whether we would put up a substantial sum in gold.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That was all explained. It is all in the agreement.


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: I wish, to make a brief comment in rising to support the bill. We had an excellent explanation before the banking and commerce committee, and I think the situation is quite clear. No one tried to pretend that Bretton Woods was a magih, that it would do impossible things and solve all problems. On the other hand it was represented to us that it embodied the work of able men who had devoted much thought to the subject, and it is put forward now as the only means we have at the moment of trying to avert what might easily turn into financial chaos and the prevention of trade between countries.
The expert who gave most evidence referred to it as a breathing spell, and I was grateful to him for not having attempted to exaggerate.
What is the position? We have this agreement before us at the moment. It might have been improved, perhaps, and maybe if the experts sat down to-day they could improve it. But if we cast it aside, what do we do? We cast everything again into jeopardy, and it may be many months before another agreement can be arrived at, because ft is not easy for forty-four experts to come to an understanding. It is hard enough for forty-four ordinary men to agree on any question, and all the harder for forty-four experts.
The whole thing is summed up in my mind in an illustration that I hope will not be regarded as trivial. Certainly it will come home to a great many men who lived during the first great war. which is a little outmoded now. One almost blushes to refer to it, but it did take place. Some of you will probably remember a cartoon that appeared at that time depicting two men in a shell hole, the shells bursting all round them. They were feeling quite unhappy, and evidently had been having a strenuous argument as to what to do. The legend below the picture was: "If you knows of a better 'ole, go to it!"
I hope, as I said, this will not be regarded as a trivial illustration, but if it is, then I offer another that will certainly not be received in that light. Whatever else it may be, it certainly is not trivial. I suggest that this is an act of faith. We are living in a dangerous world where we can live only by faith. Holy ' Writ tells us that the just shall live by faith, but in these days we must all live by faith, whether we are just or unjust. Indeed, in this dangerous world, I do not know that we have much else to live by.
Someone has pointed out, very truly, I think, that in the year from June, 1940, when the other nations collapsed, to June,
Bretton Woods Agreements

1941, when Russia came in, there was just no reason for us to -believe that we were going to win the war; yet we did believe that we would win. I say therefore that this agreement before us represents an act of faith on our part. What do I mean? I mean that it is a beginning. But if we can begin in this way, other things will follow. If we can begin by some kind of financial cooperation, it will be a help. It is only a beginning; an understanding in trade is necessary. But we can .begin with this act of faith, next summer we may have another act of faith. When trade arrangements are made they will be an act of faith for the moment too.
If the terms that have been granted to England are harsh to-day, let us work together, and have faith that they will be revised. If we can work together for a year or two years, then we can have faith that we shall strengthen our capacity to work together, and that we shall go on and on. That is why I say that it is an act of faith which I think we can all support.


Solon Earl Low: I should like to sum up briefly
the position which the Social Credit group takes with respect to this whole matter before section 1 is passed. I shall not take very ipuch of the time of the committee, but I feel that I am duty bound to summarize our arguments in this way.
I listened carefully to every word that was said in this hoqse, as well as in the banking and commerce committee, with respect to Bretton Woods. I have read everything that I could get my hands on that had anything to say for or against Bretton Woods. I listened with great care to the evidence that was given in the committee by Mr. Rasminsky and Doctor Mackintosh. I have not missed one single minute of the whole of the discussions that have taken place with respect to this measure.
In the banking and commerce committee I believe I listened to the finest discussion that I have ever heard on any subject, a debate in which mind met mind in a fair and comprehensive manner. I say without any equivocation that I enjoyed that discussion immensely, and only wish with all my heart that it could be carried on with other witnesses under examination-because in the committee we had only the witnesses who were involved in the building up of the Bretton Woods agreement for the government and not any others; therefore we had no opportunity whatever to listen to the other side of the question.
As a result of all that I have been able to read and hear, I feel that the contentions of the Social Credit group have been successfully maintained; that our major criticisms of 
Bretton Woods have been proved. At no stage of the procedure from the day the resolution was introduced into the house until now have I heard anything that would in any way argue successfully against these contentions.
In the first place it is still our sincere'belief that the Bretton Woods agreement has a distinct pro-creditor-nation bias. Mr. Rasminsky's evidence showed conclusively that nowhere in the whole agreement is there any provision which will assure that creditor nations will receive imports of goods in payment for their exports to those debtor nations, which is the only way in which debtor nations may be able to avoid piling up huge burdens of interestbearing and unpayable debt. On the other hand, sir, the Bretton Woods agreement does impose upon debtor nations the responsibility of abolishing the means by which they might protect themselves against economic invasion and warfare waged by the big industrial creditor nations. Therefore in our minds the scheme stands condemned because of this fundamental weakness.
In the second place the Social Credit claim that Bretton Woods establishes a form of gold standard has been successfully substantiated-not the gold standard of 1914 or 1925; nevertheless a form of gold standard as admitted by Mr. Rasminsky in his evidence, a form of gold standard in some ways worse than any hitherto used, in that it succeeds in removing from debtor nations their means of protection against economic warfare without in any way removing the causes of that war.
In the third place there has been no satisfactory attempt to refute the Social Credit claim that article XI of the agreement provides a boycott that can and must be invoked b^ member nations against non-member nations. Therefore in this respect our claim must stand as maintained.	.
In the fourth place it was the consensus of all who spoke, and of the witnesses heard in the committee, that it would require a change of heart within each nation if Bretton Woods were ever to be made to work successfully. Our contention is, and always has been, that if a change of heart occurs amongst the nations and within the nations, there will be no need for a Bretton Woods.
It has been argued here to-day, sir, that there is no alternative, that there is no "better 'ole". In our speeches and in our arguments on a number of occasions we have put forward what is a successful and a scientific alternative to Bretton Woods, and does not contain the weaknesses or the dangers of Bretton Woods. By that I mean the London chamber of commerce proposals, the Twentieth Century Economic System. I am satisfied

Bretton Woods Agreements
that that is a better arrangement than Bretton Woods. I feel sure, Mr. Chairman, that if we had time we could prove that it is a satisfactory alternative to Bretton Woods. I am only sorry that there has been such evidence of indecent haste in trying to get this measure through, because I should like to have been able to present that alternative point by point. I understand, of course, that it would entail the necessity of convincing other nations; but, sir, that is no reason why we should not take time to examine the whole of any alternative proposal that is brought forward in the hope that we might be able to induce some of the other nations whose heart might change, as has been said, to adopt that alternative and not attach all of its faith to Bretton Woods.
My colleagues and I successfully have maintained that the whole of Bretton Woods is based upon fraudulent claims, and therefore it is not to be thought of as any mechanism for curing the world's ills.
It has been argued by some hon. members that we must live by faith. That is quite true; but I cannot look upon Bretton Woods as any act of faith. I do not like to feel that I am pinning my faith upon the same old system, the same old financial machinery that before this war brought us misery, destitution, breadlines, business stagnation, unemployment problems and all the suffering to humanity that it did. How in the name of common sense anybody can pin his faith upon that same old system under another face is beyond me. If they think, Mr. Chairman, that this will in any way change the complexion of things in the years to come, then their faith is certainly being pinned upon a shadow.
After weighing all the evidence and hearing all the arguments, my judgment is that our position has been adequately maintained, and therefore we can do no more than say we have served the interests of the people to the best of our ability. We have maintained our position right through, in spite of all efforts to hurry this up and cut us off. We have received wires and telephone calls from people all across this country asking us to continue to wage our battle, asking us to keep up the fight; they have numbered into the dozens during the course of an afternoon. But, sir, there is a limit to the endurance both of the members of this group and of this house, and I say to you that I feel we have discharged our responsibilities to the limit of our capabilities. For that reason I am going to close the case with this warning. The next few years will vindicate our judgment, and one day the Social Credit group in this house will
be credited with having done something during this phst week that might eventually save the British commonwealth of nations. I hope it will. However, in all seriousness I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that we had better look to these things which are around us; we had better examine them inside and out; we had better spare no effort in finding out exactly what we are doing. The next time any important measures like this comes up, I would suggest to the government that they get the measure into the house in plenty of time so that we may examine it thoroughly; and, having done so, make up our minds on the basis of the facts adduced and the evidence brought forward. The Social Credit members stand united in their opposition to Bretton Woods.


Hughes Cleaver: I rise to offer a few remarks on this measure in the hope that I may be able to create just a little doubt in the minds of my Social Credit friends as to their fears, which I think are based largely upon misunderstanding and misgivings which have no reality in fact. I do not want to weary the committee in dealing with this subject. It would take many times forty minutes to attempt to outline to the committee what the agreements contain, to say nothing of how it is hoped they will operate.
The'Bretton Woods agreements have to do with international exchange rates and1 international credits. For the moment I shall content myself with simply reading briefly the main object that is hoped to. be attained through each agreement. I refer now to article I of the agreement with respect to the international monetary fund, which states that the object this fund hopes to attain is to promote international monetary cooperation through a permanent institution which will provide the machinery for consultation and collaboration on international monetary problems. The capital involved is $8,800 million; and just here I may say that in all these figures I am about to mention the dollars are given in relation to United States funds. Canada's contribution to the fund is $300 million, of which we are to furnish twenty-five per cent in gold and the balance in Canadian currency. So that Canada's quota works out to 3-41 per cent of the fund. Then, in regard to the bank the main object, according to article I of the agreement, is:	.
To assist in the reconstruction and development of territories of members by facilitating the investment of capital for productive purposes. . .
The authorized capital is $10,000 million and Canada's contribution is $325 million, of which only two per cent is to be paid in gold
Bretton Woods Agreements

and eighteen per cent, in Canadian currency, the remainder being subject to call. In this case our total contribution, if calls were made to the full extent provided for in the act, would be 3-5 per cent of the authorized capital.
Those who oppose this measure do so on the following grounds; I may not state them in exactly the language used by individual members, but I think I can fairly sum up the objections to the Bretton Woods agreements that we have heard from the Social Credit party. Their first criticism is that Canada has not given to these agreements the time and attention which the importance of the subject demands. The next objection is that . we have acquired no substantial benefits, and that at the same time we have shackled ourselves in regard to future actions. As far as the agreements themselves are concerned their complaints are two-fold. They state the agreements will result in a return to the gold standard, and further that creditor nations are not compelled to accept payment in goods from debtor nations. I have carefully listened to all the discussion both in this house and in committee with regard to the agreements, and I believe that the objections and arguments I have just outlined are a fair resume of the position taken by the Social Credit party in opposition to these agreements. If I have erred in any way I shall thank any hon. member of that party to correct me, because I feel that if we are to get anywhere in any discussion we must at least be fair in outlining the position of our opponents.
Mr. LOW; That is fair enough.


Hughes Cleaver: With respect to the first criticism, that Canada has rushed into these agreements and has not taken sufficient time to consider them, I wish to say that Canada did not rush into the agreements. As far back as 1943, and prior to that, the same financial experts who performed such a wonderful job for this country in financing our war effort were studying these post-war problems; and as early as 1943 they reduced to writing suggestions they had to make in regard to the approach to this problem of international exchange and international credits. Those recommendations or suggestions were reduced to writing and submitted to the experts of other countries for consideration long before the Bretton Woods conference. Then, when the conference came, Canada sent to it a distinguished delegation, composed of the best brains in this country in regard to financial and other matters, if I may be permitted to say so.


Ernest George Hansell: We will not permit you to say so.


Hughes Cleaver: Well, I do not hesitate to say that my hon. friend would have a great deal of difficulty in choosing a stronger delegation to attend that conference. Included in the delegation was our Minister of Finance, our Minister of Justice, the governor of the Bank of Canada, the deputy minister of finance, the chairman of the foreing exchange control board, and many other competent gentlemen. These men met with the delegates of more than forty other countries at that conference; and as a result of the conference we have the Bretton Woods agreement now before the house.


John Horne Blackmore: In twenty-one days.


Hughes Cleaver: No, not twenty-one days ago. These agreements were printed in whitepaper form in 1944. They were circulated among the members of the house, and if hon. members did not read, study and ponder them, whose fault is it? Is it the fault of the government?


John Horne Blackmore: Not the Bretton Woods agreemenf?


Hughes Cleaver: Most assuredly. I hold in my hand a white paper printed by the king's printer under a date in 1944, giving the full text of the agreement, and considerable other material.


Mr. QUBLCH:: But no chance was provided
for debate.
Mr.'CLEAVER: That is a point I shall be glad to deal with. But I do say this, that so far as the government is concerned, the fullest possible information was made available to every hon. member. I received my copy months ago. I do not know when the hon. member for Lethbridge received his, but I believe he received it about the same time.


John Horne Blackmore: I think the hon.
member did not grasp the significance of what I said. I pointed out that these experts from forty-four nations arrived at their remarkable conclusions after twenty-one days of conference.


Hughes Cleaver: That is true.


John Horne Blackmore: A wonderful thing!


Hughes Cleaver: But I suggest to the hon. member that while the Bretton Woods conference lasted only from July 1 to July 22, 1944, the delegates who attended spent days, months and years in preparatory study, exchanging information back and forth, and in that way getting ready for the conference.

Bretton Woods Agreements
Bless you, you would not expect such a conference to be called without having all the spade-work and1 preparatory work done in advance.
Another hon. member has suggested that there has not been sufficient opportunity for debate in this matter, and that we did not have sufficient time in the committee on banking and commerce to discuss the measure. I should like to say a word or two in that connection.
In the committee on banking and commerce the hon. member for Lethbridge took the trouble to carry down to the committee room his copy of the proceedings of the banking and commerce committee which sat a year ago, in connection with the revision of the Bank Act. That is a revision which takes place only once in ten years, and in that instance it was long overdue. We spent day after day canvassing the advisability and wisdom of certain proposed revisions. I do not want hon. members to take offence, but I think we wasted a little time in that inquiry. I have a recollection of a few days, at least, when in my opinion we did not accomplish much.	.
I suggest to the hon. member that it is not fair to measure the time required in the banking and commerce committee for the study of, the Bretton Woods agreement with the yardstick he proposes to use. In connection with Bretton Woods we had before us an agreement negotiated by experts, after years of study, an agreement which we had no power either to amend or to vary in any way.


John Horne Blackmore: We had power to reject it.


Hughes Cleaver: Our sole task was to call before us expert witnesses so that we would, as far as it might be possible for laymen so to do, fully understand the contents of the
agreement.


Mr. JAQUES:: It was an ultimatum.


Hughes Cleaver: As a result we called two men who attended the conference.


John Horne Blackmore: You called one.


Hughes Cleaver: And every member on the committee had the fullest opportunity to question those men. I did not, as chairman, shut off any of the questions, so that there was the fullest opportunity to question those men.


Solon Earl Low: Only one of them.


Hughes Cleaver: The complaint has been made that we should have called witnesses who were opposed to the Bretton Woods agreement. I cannot understand that type of
argument. We had before us an agreement which we had either to accept or to reject. Hon. members may have noticed a press release which appears in to-day's newspapers under a Washington date, which contains the announcement that it is now apparent that just over sixty-six per cent of the subscribed membership will take place with respect to the Bretton Woods agreement by the deadline date.


Solon Earl Low: That is w'hat is expected.


Hughes Cleaver: And included among those accepting nations is Great Britain. Is Canada to be placed in a position where we decline to support Great Britain, and where we turn down the agreement and call in experts for the purpose of securing sufficient excuse to turn them down? If Canada's 3-17 per cent is taken from the available sixty-six per cent, the necessary subscription to the agreement will not take place by the deadline date.


Ernest George Hansell: Does the hon. member believe that a court should hear only witnesses for the defence?


Hughes Cleaver: There you go! That shows the attitude of the Social Credit party. I do not want them to take offence, but I must say that if we are to acomplish anything we at least must be frank with each other.


Ernest George Hansell: And that is what I am doing.


Hughes Cleaver: Who is the defence, and who is the prosecution in connection with the Bretton Woods agreement?


Ernest George Hansell: But the committee heard only one side of the question.


Hughes Cleaver: Why does my hon. friend refer to the "defence"? It just shows the attitude.


Ernest George Hansell: Because the witnesses who came before the committee were defending their action.


Hughes Cleaver: Not at all. But it does show clearly the suspicious frame of mind under which, I am sorry to say, my hon. friends are labouring in eonnedtion with this agreement.


Victor Quelch: In the past when certain bills have been referred to committees, has it not been customary to call witnesses who might be opposed to the passage of such bills? It has been done in every committee on which I have served.


Ernest George Hansell: That is the purpose of the committee.
Bretton Woods Agreements


Hughes Cleaver: I would say this to my hon. friends, that if we had had two or three months to study this problem-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Victor Quelch: Why hadn't we?


Hughes Cleaver: -and if we had not been forced by the pressure of events-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Hughes Cleaver: -it might well be-


Victor Quelch: We met in September.


Hughes Cleaver: Please pehnit me to answer the question. It might well be that, even though the committee considered it unnecessary, rather than appear to act in any undemocratic fashion, my hon. friends would have been permitted1 to call witnesses, no matter how fantastic their evidence might have been.


Victor Quelch: Would you consider the evidence of Paul Einaig fantastic? That is one of the gentlemen we advocated calling.


Hughes Cleaver: I come now to the next objection which my friends have raised. They argue that no substantial benefits will accrue to the members from this agreement and that if Canada joins we shall be shackled in our future actions. Such words as "blockade" and other words of that kind were used.


John Horne Blackmore: "Blockade" was never used.


Hughes Cleaver: If any one expects that the millennium will come as a result of the Bretton Woods agreements, the Minister of Finance has indicated clearly that he has no such hope. I have not heard any one seriously suggest that the Bretton Woods agreements are intended to deal with more than just one segment of the post-world problem. True, it is an important part of the problem and, while world recovery cannot take place unless this part of the problem- is adequately dealt with, it is equally true that the over-all success depends upon many other factors. If the world is to become contented and prosperous there are many other matters in addition to international exchange and international credit facilities to be dealt with. Those who believe that no substantial benefits will accrue to Canada and the world as a result of the operation of the new international monetary fund and the new international bank, I consider pessimists. I suggest to my opponents that they entirely underrate the importance of international cooperation. There are some individuals in -the world who still believe that compulsion is the only way to get anything done. Happily for the world they

can be wrong. In the majority, people do not like to be coerced. The operation- of Bretton Woods is a cooperative approach as compared with dictatorship and compulsion. While the financial arrangements and facilities which are to' become available through the operation of this fund may in- the main appear to my hon. friend to be inadequate, I suggest that he and his colleagues have overlooked one feature which is quite important. Under these -agreements, we are setting up an international forumi to which nations with grievances can appeal. This conciliation board, as I would call it, will be of great advantage in further improving cooperative relations among the nations.
As to the argument that Canada is shackling herself by entering into this agreement, the agreement provides that any member can withdraw from the fund and from the bank on request.


Victor Quelch: Read article XI.


Hughes Cleaver: The only thing which binds members to membership in this agreement are the mutual benefits which they will get as a result of that membership. Is there anything in- that .which shackles Canada? Personally I cannot find anything. My hon. friend asked me to read -article XI. I have read article XI dozens of times to try to read into it the things which he suggests. I cannot read into article XI anything mbre than what it says. I ask hon. members to read it for themselves because it is a long article.


Victor Quelch: Explain what it means.


Hughes Cleaver: The operative part is this:
Each member undertakes:
(i)	not to engage in, nor to -permit any of its fiscal agencies referred to in article V, section 1, to engage in any transactions with a nonmember or with persons in -a non-member's territory which would be contrary to the provisions of this -agreement;
(ii)	not to cooperate with -a non-member . . . in practices which would be contrary -to -the provisions of this agreement . . .


Victor Quelch: The hon. member is not quoting it correctly; he left out the words "or the purposes of the fund".


Hughes Cleaver: If I had the time I would be glad to read the whole article. I know the hon. member has read it and I know every hon. member of the committee has this document. I will leave it at that. I do not want to hold up this measure any longer, but I should like to suggest this one feature. Under these two measures Canada is obligated to a total expenditure of 8625,000,000 to promote better cooperation internationally on exchanges and in regard to foreign credits.

Bretton Woods Agreements
When one considers the millions that we poured into winning this war, the millions we have given to UNRRA and the millions we have voted to finance export credits, would any * member dare hesitate to support a measure, the total liability under which is only $625,000,000, to further international good will and international cooperation in regard to foreign exchange and international debts?


Mr. IRVINE:: I do not suppose that much more light can be shed on this great subject. I notice that the representatives of the parties who were represented on the banking and commerce committee have had something to say on the bill and the provisions of the agreements, and I just wanted to take a few moments of the time of the committee to indicate that I am supporting this bill as a member of the committee. I should like at least to give an idea of why I am doing that. I think the bill has some meaning, and I think the agreement has a definite meaning and has possibilities of playing a part in the future economy of the world. I hope that the prophecy of my hon. friend to my left will be absolutely untrue. I hope he can be made to believe in the possibility that he may be wrong. I consider I have as great hopes for the future of this agreement as my hon. friends have grounds for believing in its complete failure.
Perhaps I should say here that the investigations in the committee were on a very high plane. The hon. gentlemen who opposed this bill in the resolution stage and on second reading and so forth did make a contribution to the discussion and to the inquiry. The hon. member for Acadia made an outstanding contribution. Many of the questions which he raised I wanted to raise myself, and I was glad to hear the discussion which was based on them. However, I think there is an undercurrent of suspicion on the part of these hon. gentlemen which in my opinion is hardly justified. My memory of the answers of the witnesses to the questions and to' the fears which were expressed leads me to believe that those fears are groundless and that the dire effects which those hon. members anticipate as a possibility do not seem to have any basis in fact.
Someone has suggested that, in addition to being perhaps a little over-suspicious, my hon. friends to the left have not offered an alternative proposal.


Solon Earl Low: We have not had the chance.


William Irvine: I am just going to say that. It is not clear how any group in this house could make an alternative proposal to an international agreement. That is one of the 47696-221
factors of this whole discussion which >we ought to keep in view. This is an international agreement which, as the chairman of tire banking and commerce committee has just explained, was carefully gone into and prepared for long in advance. It cannot be amended here, we cannot propose an alternative to it here. The only way we could have an alternative to an agreement of this kind is to go out and make another international agreement, which would take quite some time, and we do not have enough time to do that, so that is quite impossible. However, since that is so, and since we cannot amend the terms of the agreement or, at this session, create an alternative, I think it is only fair that those who oppose the agreement as it is should be able to set forth the general principles upon which it might be possible to arrive at a better agreement. I believe my hon. friends think they have done that. Some of us disagree; but I do not want to argue that point here; we shall have to differ on that point, for the moment at least, without taking time to go into the details of the difference.
I think, however, my hon. friends on the left should agree on this point. They have pointed out, more often and perhaps more effectively than most of us, the influence of international finance on international policy. If we are to prevent the evil influences of international finance, and if we are to obtain democratic control of the instruments of finance international, surely we must follow the projects of international finance into the international field. There is no possibility of preventing an international undertaking by any kind of national action, and if you are to have democratic control of international finance it can be had only by the creation of an international body to do the controlling. This agreement, with all the faults it may have-and I am' quite prepared to say that from my point of view it has some faults- is, in my opinion, an outstanding agreement in this particular, that an international organization is about to make an experiment, and a very important one, in international financing. Provision is made in this agreement whereby at least some financing can be done without one having to go cap in hand to the international bankers. Although the finances which have been provided in this agreement may properly be regarded by hon. members as inadequate for what it may be called upon to do, and this may very well prove to be true, it is a beginning, and to the extent that it is the beginning of an international organization which provides funds for the use of

Bretton Woods Agreements


Solon Earl Low: Or gives it away.


William Irvine: Or gives it away, yes. I
think that phase of the agreement should be an excellent lesson in international economies; and I would say that in the practice of this, nations that have large surpluses to export and are tardy about permitting exchange of goods for their surpluses, will learn a great lesson.	.

May I say just a word or two in summing up some of the advantages, and then I shall have finished.
In the first place, I have emphasized the importance of the international effort. It is an international organization tackling a problem which is international in character and which no individual government could possibly solve. Second, one of its tasks is to stabilize exchange rates, and to make available for that purpose a fund which will be accessible to the nations that happen to get into difficulty; and this, without having to be at the mercy of international bankers.
Another feature of the bill or of the agreement is, of course, the international bank. That too, with its ten billions of capital, wiii be an important factor in the future economy of the world, and has great possibilities of extension. There are vast territories in the world which are backward and undeveloped; and if we are to increase our standard of living here and throughout the world, then those backward countries must be helped to develop their resources, so that they too, can raise their standards of living in order to consume more of our goods in exchange for those which they have to send to us. If private enterprise does not want to go into these countries alone for fear of losing something, we have [DOT] an international fund which will be guaranteed by the country that does the borrowing which makes it possible to furnish investment capital in backward parts of the world, which may well play an important part in the postponing at least of the worst phases of a depression which may be upon us at any time.
The claim that this is the gold basis is both true and untrue-I was going to say false, and I do not know whether untrue is the same thing. What I mean is this. The witness, Mr. Rasminsky, said that it was a phase of the gold standard; that is to say, that the gold standard is used merely as a measuring stick, and it is just as good a measuring stick, he argues, as an index figure. I do not know whether that is true or not. I would rather . have an index figure myself. I am not very much interested in gold measuring sticks. But it is used only as a means of making up trade balances between nations and the feature of the gold standard which most of us object to most strenuously means that you can, because of the g'old standard, limit the currency and credit of your nation to such an extent as to practically starve your people in the midst of abundance. That has been very largely true in some instances. That feature of it is not

Bretton Woods Agreements
in practice in this international agreement, so that it is really not true to say that we have the gold standard which figured in our contentions years ago.
The next point is that the agreement does not mean that Canada or any other country which ratifies the agreement must go on the gold basis. Canada is not on the gold basis, thank heaven, and I do not suppose it wants to be; and if it ever tries to be on that basis I for one will do my best to keep it off.
Here is the last point. If creditor nations do not accept goods in payment for their exports; if under this agreement they do not wish to do so, we shall be no worse off than we are now, not the slightest bit in the world. That is what they do now and what they have always done. On the other hand, the whole object of the agreement is to encourage those nations which adopt it to do just that; that is to say, to accept goods in exchange for their favourable balances.
May I call the attention of the committee to the proposal made between the United States government and the government of the United Kingdom for the expansion of world trade and employment. Here we have what might be said to be a necessary corollary of the agreement we are discussing, that if these trade agreements are not effected after this agreement, then of course it will prevent the Bretton Woods agreement from accomplishing its purpose.
I believe there are great possibilities in this agreement. If it fails, as my hon. friend thinks it will, I shall not be surprised but I shall be greatly disappointed. I am hoping that this undertaking, which we have started with such little enthusiasm, which seems to have no friends anywhere, may turn out to be the beginning of that world government which I believe is essential if we are to save the human race.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
On Section 5-Payment of subscriptions out of Consolidated Revenue fund.
William Ross Macdonald: This section has been amended by the committee by striking out the word "pay" in line twenty-one and inserting in place thereof the words "provide for payment of", so that the first line of section five will now read:	"The Minister of
Finance may provide for payment of the subscriptions".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Setion as amended agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
47696-221J
William Ross Macdonald: A new section 7 has been added. Shall the section carry?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported on division.
Mr. ILSLEY moved the third reading of the bill.

[Stage Direction]
Indian affairs branch-
165. Indian agencies, $898,266.
George Hugh Castleden: I wish to say^ with regard to this matter generally that we in the C.C.F. party have protested yearly against living conditions among the Indians, the want that has existed there, and in many cases the attitude of the government. We have protested also against injustices committed by the Indian affairs. branch, in that many of the treaties signed with these people have apparently been broken. It is encouraging. then, to find that since the present minister has taken over the affairs of this department there has been a change in attitude, and that some of the reforms and changes we advocated in the past are apparently in process of being attended to.
One cam scarcely be charged with speaking politically when he refers to Indian affairs, when it is remembered that the Indians have no vote. In my view one of the chief defects

in the department has been that the Indians have had no way in which their voice could be heard by the federal authorities.
We note with a good deal of pleasure the fact that the government is apparently undertaking some revision of the Indian Act. Although thus far no action has been taken to place amendments before the house, I would expect that before his estimates are completed the minister would give us some information on the point and at that time possibly he would tell us when those changes might be expected to take the form of legislation.	'
Within the past year the Indians of Canada have undertaken to organize themselves in each of the provinces. They have gathered together in convention, and have been successful in sending delegates from all parts of Canada. Last September one of those conventions was held in Ottawa, at which time there were presented to the government briefs in which were set out certain complaints they had in connection, with the administration of Indian affairs.
One of the suggestions had to do with a proposed amendment to the Indian Act, so as to give Indians some voice in the administration of their affairs. The Indian considers that he is treated too much as a child, and in my view the time has come when we should look upon the Indian population as humans, with rights to citizenship. They need not be treated entirely as wards. The policy under the Indian Act has been to keep them subdued to such an extent that their capacity and ability have been smothered. Surely this is not good.
New Zealand is one of "the countries which in this connection has taken a forward step. The Maoris have been granted rights of citizenship to the extent that they now have representation in that part of the New Zealand system of government which would correspond to our House of Commons. Their representatives sit in that legislative body, and act in connection with the administration of Maori affairs.
Surely the time has come when a similar step should be taken in Canada so that an opportunity would be given to those thousands of Indians within our boundaries who might wish to have representation in the affairs of the country, and more particularly some voice in the administration of their own affairs.
I believe the minister will agree that the Indian organizations in Canada have shown that they have capacity and ability. Their attitude has been one of willingness and they have shown an anxiety to cooperate. I believe any assistance the government could give to

Supply-Indian Affairs
help them organize would be appreciated, because they operate with only limited means. It is my understanding that the minister has seen fit to* assist them to the extent of providing travelling expenses to their conventions. That is a new procedure, and one which is much appreciated by the Indian population.
I believe they have written several letters to the minister expressing their appreciation of his attitude.
I suggest that in the revision of the act the government should consider the fact that until the Indians of Canada have representation in the Indian affairs branch, to which they must appeal for the settlement of their grievances, they will feel that they have not had proper representation, or proper opportunity for the redress of their grievances.
I note that this year there is an increase of about $1 million in expenditures for the health and welfare of Indians across Canada. This increase, which represents about sixteen per cent of the total, is all to the good, and is a step toward wiping out some of the prevailing wrongs. Conditions among many of the Indians are deplorable; I have never seen suffering such as I have seen in some of the Indian reserves.
The Indians have expressed a desire to have an over-all inquiry into their conditions across Canada, so that a study may be made of those conditions from which evils arise, with a view to effecting remedies. I believe the department has not seen its way clear to grant the request for an inquiry, but is considering changes in the act, without such an inquiry having been made. An inquiry of the kind suggested could do much good.
Within the past two weeks the executive of the North American Indian brotherhood met in Ottawa and, in the absence of an inquiry, they have made suggestions to the government respecting revisions to certain sections in the Indian Act. They direct attention first to section 18, which deals with the entitlement of a band to receive benefits. There is the feeling that their own Indian councils have the capacity to decide who should and who should not come within the band. Section 18 now reads.
The superintendent general (minister) may, from time to time, upon the report of an officer, or other person specially appointed by him to make an iifquiry, determine -who is or who is not a member of any band of Indians entitled to share in the property and annuities of the band.
2. The decision of the superintendent general (minister) in any such matter shall be final and conclusive, subject to an appeal to the governor in council.
Then section 40 states:
No person shall buy or otherwise acquire from any band or irregular band of Indians or from any Indian and no Indian shall sell or otherwise dispose of to any one other than a member of the band, any cattle or other animals of any kind from any reserve in the province of Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta or the Territories without the written consent of the Indian agent.
The band still feels that the Indian agent in this respect has been granted too much power.
I believe that some years ago this section had merit, but to-day the Indians are in a position to give proper judgment as to who should sell cattle and materials off the reserves. In the early days there were occasions when drovers and other unscrupulous persons-used to come to the reserves and practically steal cattle from the Indians. At that time this section was a proper safeguard. However, to-day I believe that the band should make decisions of this kind, and that under the present system the Indian should be given a full report of the sale price of his cattle, to whom they were sold and the date upon which they were sold.
Then, section 52 has to do with the power of the governor in council to remove any Indian band from the place in which it is at present situated. This gives absolute power to the minister, or the officials at his department, to move a band, if in the opinion of th-ose officials the band is situated too close to a town or city. The Indian band has no say in the matter at all.
Section 93 contains particular powers. It reads:
The governor in council may, with the consent of a band, authorize and direct the expenditure of any capital moneys standing at the credit of such band in the purchase of land as a reserve for the band or as an addition to its reserve, or the possessory rights of a member of the band in respect of any particular parcel of land on the reserve, or in the purchase of cattle, implements or machinery for the band, or in the construction of permanent' improvements upon the reserve of the band, or such works thereon or in connection therewith as, in his opinion, will be of permanent value to the band, or will, when completed, properly represent capital, or in the making of loans to members of the band to promote progress, no such loan, however, to exceed in amount one-half of the appraised value of the interest of the borrower in the lands held by him.	.
In the event of a band refusing a consent to the expenditure of such capital moneys as the superintendent general (minister) may consider advisable for any of the purposes mentioned an subsection one of this section, and it appearing to -the superintendent general (minister) that such refusal is detrimental to the progress or welfare of the bahd, the governor in council may, without the consent of the band, authorize and direct the expenditure of such capital for such of the said purposes as may be considered reasonable and proper.
Supply-Indian Affairs

Recently there was passed by this house under the minister's guidance a bill taking away from an Indian reserve, I think it was the Stony Indian band in Alberta, certain water power rights. The minister stated that the arrangements with regard to that sale were carried on Without the consent of the band. In view of the rights of these Indians, in view of the fact that this is their property, I think the band should have been consulted about the matter so that they, would know what was being done. Section 99A gives considerable power to the agent. It reads:
At meetings of the council the agent for the reserve, or his deputy appointed for the purpose with the consent of the superintendent general ([DOT]minister), shall
(a)	preside, and record the proceedings;
(b)	control and regulate all matters of procedure and form, and adjourn the meeting to a time named or sine die.
Is it not time that the Indian band themselves were permitted to carry on their own business at these band meetings? They could go to the agent for advice instead of being constantly placed under the control of these persons.
Section 102 deals with taxation. The Indian considers that he is not getting the rights and privileges of his white brothers. Since he does not share in the benefits of taxation, he feels that there are certain taxes to which he should not be subject. The Indians have shown a willingness to cooperate with the government and I believe that if there were proper discussion between the officials of the department and the representatives of the North American Indian brotherhood executive an understanding could be reached.
I do not think they object to paying taxes on income earned off the reserve; but in some cases, Quebec for example, these Indians have homes on the reserve. Some of them have electricity in their houses and they must pay a special tax on . that. They feel that being on a reserve they should not have to pay that. They consider that a single person should not be taxed on income less than SI,000 a year and that if married, he should be exempt up to $2,000. There are matters like this which require the consideration of the department and which should be modified.
The Indians have shown a tremendous willingness to cooperate. They appreciate what the minister has done, and they are willing to go all the way with him in an effort to have what they consider wrongs redressed. If the government will do these things I am sure it will have the support of all hon. members. A few weeks ago we had a discussion on, a resolution which would have

given the Indians the right to old age pensions. Hon. members on all sides and of every party supported that. Unfortunately some hon. members talked so lo^g, whether deliberately or not I do not know, and it was impossible to have a vote. Surely the expressions of opinion given in this house are sufficient to let the minister know just how the representatives of the people of Canada feel in regard to this matter. If there is any possibility at all of carrying out the suggestions that have been made and giving these people who were first in our midst, the real Canadians, an opportunity to make a contribution to the Dominion of Canada, it should be done. We are voting millions for the welfare of the Indians, but let us give them an opportunity and they will take care of themselves. These people can take care of themselves; they can fend for themselves if given an opportunity.
The educational system for the Indian is wrong is several particulars. According to the latest report of the department, the number of Indians in Canada between the ages of seven and sixteen years is 26,000. The average attendance of Indians in schools, residential and day and others, is 13,257. Only one-half of the Indian children in Canada are receiving training. I realize that there is something to be said about the difficulties encountered in the far north with these people moving about, but the matter of education should receive special consideration in view of the fact that these people are not yet living under the same standards as the white people.
Go to some of these schools and you will find them teaching Indian girls how to cook on an electric plate or how to run an electric washing machine. When they go back to the reserve they are just discontented. These people have capacities as fishermen, as hunters and as woodsmen. I wish to compliment the department upon what they have done in the way of fur farming. These people have a great capacity to work and provide for themselves and they could make a contribution to our country. Early in life we should discover what capacities they have and then train them along those lines. If we do that we shall soon have doctors, nurses and missionaries who. will go out among these people and help to lift them up. If the government will continue with this policy I am sure it will have the support of every phrty in this house. I have offered these few suggestions in the hope that the government will do something along these lines. I can assure the minister that he will receive the cooperation, of every one here.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

Supply-Indian Affairs
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. MacNICOL:: I am not going to be long, because of the late stage of the session at which these estimates have come before the committee, and also because we know we must get them through promptly since the minister has an important engagement in the far west which it is imperative that he keep. But I wish to make one or two suggestions, particularly because he is a new minister in an old department.. I am sure that all hon. members who have any experience as regards Indian affairs want to help him in his great task. I personally have strong hopes that he will do a fine job when he gets thoroughly accustomed to the work of the department.
First, I suggest that in his own good time he consider setting up a parliamentary committee, a special committee or otherwise, consisting of members of this house and of the senate, to inquire thoroughly into the whole problem of Indian affairs. It is quite a long time since this was last done, and I feel sure that everyone will admit that the time has come, owing to the real advance which the Indians have made, when new regulations could be prepared which would have much more beneficial consequences to them and to the country generally.	.
I further suggest to the minister that he urge on the government, contrary to the practice, to have his departmental estimates brought in early. During the sixteen years I have been here they have been introduced almost at the very last living hour of the session. My good friend the hon. member for Vancouver Centre puts estimates through rapidly. I am not finding any fault about that, but I recall that at the time he sat on this side of the house the estimates did not go through so fast. However, I give him credit for getting departmental estimates through; I am sure he would have made a good business manager.
In the discussion which would probably arise in such a committee as I have suggested, the matter of having Indian representatives in the house might well have a place. As the minister probably knows, the natives of South Africa, the Kaffir peoples, have either four or five representatives in the South African parliament. So, too, in New Zealand, the original native race is represented' in the legislature as referred to by a previous hon. member. The native races of these dominions are no better than our own, and I am of opinion that the proposal would be well worth considering, although I have no definite suggestions as to how this should be put into effect. In South
Africa the Kaffirs select their representatives in the house; whether they are represented by Kaffirs or whites I am unable to say at the moment, but in any event they are there, watching the interests of the millions of Kaffirs who live in South Africa. The problem of Indian representation is, I am sure, worth considering.
I myself 'have visited1 many reservations, perhaps twenty-five, and some in remote areas. I question whether any hon. member other than my leader has visitedi the two reservations on the Saskatchewan river, Chemahawin and Moose Lake. Probably he has visited both of them; they are remote and seldom visited by the white man. On lake Nipigon are three reserves. My suggestion to the minister is: when you visit them, go alone if you can, or take your secretary with you; you do not need anyone to tell you about this or that; when you get in a reservation there will be plenty of people to tell you all about it, and your conclusions will be your own, not what the agent or some other official tells you. I have made many surveys and I have seen a lot of reserves, but I am not going to take time to talk about them to-night.
A number of the reserves have fairs. One is the reservation of western Ontario, of the Delaware tribe, of which I am proud to be an honorary chief. They call themselves the grandfathers of Indian tribes. As the minister knows, their name is derived from Lord De la Warre, who settled on the Delaware river. They have a fair every year. A day or two ago I had a letter from their chief, Fred Stonefish, suggesting that I put up some prizes-which I am going to do-for the best-dressed folks in Indian regalia at the fair. I believe the time'has come to encourage them to take pride in their past. If you do that they will have more pride in the country to which they now belong. There should also be an effort to encourage them to exhibit at their fairs those things they make which are the distinctive product of their culture, and steps should be taken to help them to dispose of these products.
When the minister again goes to northern Manitoba I suggest that he visit Moose lake. If he will notify Thomas Lamb, Mr. Lamb will bring his diesel engined boat to The Pas and take him down river. I urge him to go down the Saskatchewan river and have a chat with Mr. Lamb about fur production. He is the real father of the development of the fur business in the Saskatchewan delta. He spent his own money bringing in pumps from the United States and pumping the water into the dried-out marshes. I know that the government of Manitoba-and this government also
Supply-Indian Affairs

-is now assisting in the production of furs in the Saskatchewan delta. But let the minister talk to the man who knows. I know Mr. Lamb intimately; he is the father of that business. I suggest to the minister, consult with him and talk to the officials after that, and you will get a new slant on the whole fur-production business.
A word or two more. The Indian educational system can be vastly improved. One day some estimates came in here relating to three reserves on lake Nipigon; and after what came out here I determined to go and see for myself. I engaged a diesel engine boat and went down the river from Willett. I visited the three reservations in that district, and I am bound to say that one of the schools was rather backward. I will not say which one, but there I saw a young girl teaching, a very nice and comely girl, but without the qualifications of a teacher. I found no child beyond the part second book in a school of twenty-eight. I will not elaborate on the question of Indian education except to say that in the Indian school on the Moravian reservation in Kent county the children have attained a high standard for a common school. The Indian schools are not all backward by any means, but some are not what they should be.
I am going to close with this comment. In Kent county on the reservation of the Moravian band of Indians it is proposed to have an international commemoration service in 1950 to which a good many eminent persons will be invited. The minister knows, or if he does not know personally he will have read in the history of western Ontario and particularly of Kent county, that the Delaware tribe came there in 1792, one of the largest branches of the whole Delaware Indian tribe in America to-day. They came with a. missionary, the Reverend David Zeisberger, who was accompanied by a famous assistant Sense-man. It is proposed to make 1950 an important year not only in the history of the Indians themselves but as commemorating the 137th anniversary of the death of the last and greatest of the Indian chiefs of those days, Tecumseh, who did so much to preserve Ontario as part of the British domain. To that international commemoration service we hope to invite the President of the United States, because one of his predecessors, General Harrison, was in command of the American army at the battle of the Thames, later becoming President of the United States. Several of the governors of states also commanded forces at that battle. We hope to have present at the commemoration the governors of Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, Penn-

sylvania, states all represented at the Battle of the Thames. Later on, I will take the matter up with the minister.


Mr. BRYCE:: I will not detain the committee, but I simply want to concur in what my colleague said. I will not repeat it, but I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I am more hopeful of the Indian situation than I was a year ago and I wish to congratulate the minister. It may seem strange to congratulate ministers, hon. gentlemen sitting onj that side-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Brother Scots.


William Scottie Bryce: I am reluctant to do so, but where praise is deserved I will not withhold it. I wish to congratulate also Mr. Hoey and Mr. Allan of the department, with whom I have been constantly in touch. On this occasion I have no grievances to bring before the committee, having already discussed matters with the department. I must say that they gave me wonderful cooperation.
There is one matter that my colleague omitted to bring before the minister. The residential schools are not up to the number they should be this year, for the reason, that it pays the Indian better to keep his children at home and get the family allowance instead of sending them to school. That is a problem which will have to be solved in the near future. We may find it necessary to turn the residential schools into vocational schools, building little schools, and let the children stay at home.
I hope that in his negotiations with the provincial governments the minister will see to it that the Indians are protected. I would draw his attention to the situation in St. Peter's reserve. If the land is handed over to the provincial government it will be necessary to protect the rights of the Indians as lar as their hay claim is concerned. The Indians with whom I come in contact on the reserve in my constituency insist upon the appointment of a royal commission, but perhaps if the department continues to move at the rate it is going now we may not need 'that royal commission. The extra money that has been voted for hospitals and the care of the sick is a step in the right direction. I would ask the minister to make some provision for the Indians at Norway House in the way of a muskrat conservation scheme. I have talked the matter over with his officials and I hope it will be given serious consideration,


Mr. GLEN:: I should like to say a few words on this vote in view of the remarks made by hon. members. It is gratifying indeed to note the tone of the discussion on the

Supply-Indian Affairs
Indian estimates, and it was also gratifying to me to find expressions of opinion of the type we heard when we were discussing old age pensions for Indians.
I think it can be said with a good deal of truth that at no time in many years have the affairs of Indians been so focused in the minds of the people of this country as they are to-day. I believe that members are expressing views which are being expressed throughout the whole country, that the affairs of the Indians must be attended to in a manner in which they have not hitherto been considered, and the aspirations and hopes of the Indians must be to some extent fulfilled.
I have had the pleasure of meeting the brotherhood of which the hon. member for Yorkton spoke, first in September when I addressed them and then again this week. They have made many proposals to which the hon. member himself has referred and of which I have a note. It was impressed upon me that they represent a particular part of the country and that that part of the country had its own particular problems, which they, were expressing.
It may be that we shall find after investigation that these problems affecting individual bands are not general throughout the country, but I am convinced that, in order that Indian affairs should be properly conducted and, as it were, a charter prepared for Indians, something further will have to be done. I did indicate, when speaking in the debate on old age pensions, that we had under consideration a policy for dealing with Indian affairs, and I mentioned then the question of a royal commission. Ever since then I have regretted having referred to the subject, because I have had so many representations as to persons who might wish to act on the commission.
A suggestion was made by the hon. member for Davenport with regard to a special committee of the house to be constituted along with members of the senate. The suggestion is that we might be able to arrive at a conclusion whereby we could deal as far as possible with the problems of the Indians. I am satisfied that unless we get some united representation of the Indians throughout the country we shall not be very successful. I believe that the isolated expressions of opinion coming from the bands or groups of individual Indians will not meet the situation, and I have made the suggestion to those with whom I have been discussing the matter -this band of Indians and the brotherhood- that there should be provincial organization. In fact, I believe it was first indicated by one 47696-222
of the members of the delegation that, in his view, the only way in which these matters could be focused and brought forward in a more representative and concrete form would be by means of provincial organizations throughout the dominion.
In the course of the discussion it was illustrated that throughout Canada many organizations have started in the provincial field and could broaden out into the federal field. If it could be broadcast among the Indians that if they were to form, within each of the provinces, their own organizations composed of officers and men of integrityin whom they have confidence, in the evolution of time they may arrive at that date which the hon. member for Davenport spoke about when he said there might be Indians 'on the floor of this house representing that body of people in the Dominion of Canada. I am satisfied that we must have an expression of opinion from the Indians throughout the whole of the Indian population. It seems to me the best way in which it can be done, although I may change my mind after due consideration, is to have a special committee set up to which the Indians can make representation. I am satisfied that a body of men such as we have here, and a committee such as could be formed from members of this house who are deeply interested in the affairs of the Indians, would be able to arrive at an act which would largely embody the desires of the Indians.
I do not fail to recognize the great magnitude of the undertaking. Along with that charter for the Indians, as one may call it, there must also be intelligent administration. Upon the administration of an act depends its success. For that reason I am hopeful that at the next session of parliament we shall be able to introduce a draft bill, the details of which shall be subject to discussion, and to which I shall invite the best attention and consideration of the wisdom of the members of this house.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indian affairs branch-medical-
167. Indian hospitals and general care of Indians, $2,425,000.
Angus MacInnis: We all know that the incidence of tuberculosis is extremely high among the Indians. It is not only high as compared with the white population, but it is very high in itself. I believe that about a year ago a committee was set up to make some investigations into this problem. Has that committee made any investigation or report, and what is the nature of the report?


James Allison Glen: As the hon. member has said, an advisory committee was set up. They have

Supply-Indian Affairs

made a report but have not yet completed their inquiries with regard to it. This vote is to provide more adequate treatment for Indians in the light of what the hon. member has said. There has been a general increase in the charges for hospitalization of Indians in non-department hospitals. The department has recently taken over two hospitals from the armed services, one near Prince Rupert and the other at the Pas in Manitoba. One of these hospitals is now in operation, and it is planned to put the other in operation within the next few months, and these estimates include the running expenses of these institutions. It is also planned to increase the nursing services and so forth. Another hospital has been taken over at Fort Norman, to which certain repairs are necessary to put it on an efficient operational basis. I may say that the matter is being considered very carefully by the department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indian affairs branch-
118. Grant to provide additional services to Indians of British Columbia, $100,000.
Mr. McMASTER:: What is the particular reason for providing this 8100,000 for the Indians who live in British Columbia?


James Allison Glen: They never got treaty money; that was the reason why.
Before this item is passed, may I say a few words about fur conservation? The leader of the opposition probably knows more about one o'f the projects than I do. I do not wish to detain the committee with any lengthy statement, but I have a factual statement of the efforts that are being made with regard to fur conservation, and the great benefits that have been obtained by the Indians through that conservation. To save time, perhaps the committee will permit me to put it on Hansard. I think it would be of great interest to the committee.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does it covgr northern Manitoba?


James Allison Glen: Yes.
It will be recalled that the first real start was made in Manitoba about eight years ago when the dominion granted assistance to the province to develop certain marsh lands in the northern part of the province near The Pas, known as the Summerberry-Two Island muskrat rehabilitation project. A year later the dominion developed an adjoining area, and subsequently the two were joined together and were placed under provincial control subject to the advice of a special fur committee composed of one dominion and two provincial representatives.

It is interesting to note that while the total cost of the joint development did not exceed $350,000, to date more than $1,800,000 worth of fur has been taken'off it. The actual value of the crop in 1944 was $469,000 and in 1945 the crop exceeded $500,000.
The following statement shows the manner in which the proceeds from this project were distributed:
Statement re Muskrat Pelts Taken from Summerberry-Two Island Project and Sold by Auction Since Trapping Began in 1940
No. of No. of Avge. Pelts Trappers Price Sold Engaged Obt'd. Year and Project	per pelt
1940 				$	
414	I	321941 	
191,562	757	1	881942 	
38,899	235	2	061943 	
2,248	(Hired)	2	80*1944 	780	2	29+1944 	
17,161	46	I	941945 	
242,517	9?1	2	98Totals 	
819,649	3,203	Gross	Auction	Royalty	Amount	Fees	Collected	Realized	Paid	$	$	$	1940	... 161,909 79	6,476 39	6,124	151941	. .. 361,179 43	14,447 18	9,578	101942	. . 80.325 19	3,213 00	1,944	951943	. . 6,302 68	252 11	112	40*1944	.. 469,268 10	16,424 38	10,238	95+ 1944	. . 32,168 78	1,125 91	1,716	101945	.. 723,256 31	25,313 97	24,251	70Totals	1,834,410 28	67,252 94 G) 53,966	35Amt. paid	Merchants	Amount*and/or	Payable toRevenue	Land	TrappersCollected	Owners	$	$	$1940	29.861 85	12.015 85	107,431 551941	64.852 20	25,497 28	246,804 671942	11.431 60	6,283 61	57,452 031943	1.187 62	2,026 27	2,724 28*1944	86.424 40	52,504 38	303,675 99fl944	5.865 35	1.309 80	22,151 621945	131,399 08	65,874 66	476,416 90Totals	331,022 10(2) 165,511 85 (3)1,216,657 04	
* Spring.
t Fall.
G) 5 cents per pelt until 1940 when 10 cents per pelt was collected.
(2)	The province retains from the gross amount realized 20 per cent to cover development costs and management costs.
(3)	This covers advances to trappers for transportation and purchase of equipment, traps, etc. This sum -and the amount shown in the next column represent the total revenue received by the trappers.

Supply-Indian Affairs
la this project, the whole Indian community at the Pas, approximately 1,000 people, have substantially benefited.
In 1944, 248 Indian heads, of families participated to the extent of 1450.19 each for three weeks' actual work, which under the plan of management adopted was paid to them $85 in cash and the balance in monthly instalments of $25 for approximately fifteen months. As a result maintenance costs for these Indians have disappeared. With a proper steady diet, general health conditions have improved and hospitalization costs to the^ department have been reduced. Generally, thd economic independence of this group of Indians has been largely restored to them. While the Indian benefits have been specially stressed, 542 half-breed and white families were also employed with similar benefits. In short, the project in 1944 gave 780 heads of families a monthly subsistence backlog of $25 for fifteen months from one crop. In 1945, 972 trappers-one-third of them Indian, participated and benefited likewise.
In cooperation with the province another area consisting of 520,000 acres is being developed at Fisher River at a cost to the dominion of $50,000. While its development contemplated an unproductive period of five years, its progress was so rapid that a small crop of $25,000 has been harvested already. The project is definitely a success and will be increasingly beneficial as the fur bearers increase in numbers. It might be mentioned that up to the time the development started it had not produced a fur crop of any consequence for over twenty years.
To complete the story in Manitoba, I am glad to be able to inform the Committee that an agreement was entered into with the provincial government to establish in the northern part of that province fourteen fur administrative units which take in practically all the northern part of Manitoba. Tn this way it is proposed to assist the province in the organization and the development of their fur resources as the Indians, whose welfare is a federal responsibility, will be the primary and chief beneficiaries. There are at present 6,000 resident Indians in northern Manitoba who will benefit from this conservative development programme. The plan contemplates an expenditure of $50,000 a year for ten years, a total of $500,000, of which the dominion's contribution will be approximately $300,000.
In Saskatchewan a board known as the northern Saskatchewan conservation board was created in 1939 and an agreement was entered into with the provincial government for the carrying out of a cooperative arrangement to restore the fur industry as a principal means of livelihood to the Indian and half-breed population. A number of small projects were carried out by the board and as well many other investigations were made. Unfortunately, the stress of war restricted the activities of the board and the programme of joint development was curtailed. I should mention, however, that the dominion is now developing one large area of over 500,000 acres in the north eastern part of the province which it secured under lease. The initial stages of the development have been completed at a cost of about $50,000 and the remainder of the work will be carried out in the next few years. I am informed that this is a very good area for muskrat development and it is hoped when completed that it will compare very favourably with the Summerberry-Two Island area at the Pas. Already the value of the crop of muskrats taken from it during the last two years has exceeded the expenditures to date.
In the province of Alberta our efforts have been directed along the lines of securing traplines for treaty Indians under the provincial trapline system. With the very generous cooperation of the provincial government we have obtained to date 1,000 registered' traplines and many more applications are now being considered. The department is assuming for the Indian the yearly cost of the trapline until the fur catch is sufficient for the Indian to pay this cost himself. Negotiations are also under way with the province for the development of a substantial area for muskrats in the Athabaska river delta. This will be a joint project similar to the one in Manitoba and it is hoped that a start will be made in the construction of the works next spring.
In the provinces of Ontario and Quebec the development has been centred upon establishing a number of heaver and other fur preserves. The provincial governments have cooperated with us very generously. In the province of Quebec we now have under development the following areas:
Nottaway preserve. This is an area of approximately 8,000 square miles located at the southeast tip of James Bay. The area was secured under lease from the province in 1938 at which time the known beaver population was 255. This has now increased to 7,035 beaver. It is proposed that a crop of 970 beaver will be taken during the present season. This at present price levels will provide a cash revenue of nearly $39,000 to the Indians, and as well over 29,000 pounds of beaver meat. During the seven years which the area has been under protection it has cost the Depart-nent $3,000 annually in management costs.
47696-222i
Supply-Indian Affairs

Most of this money was paid to the Indians in wages. It will be noted that the first year's catch greatly exceeds the total expenditures.
Abitibi preserve. This has an area of 6,000 square miles located in the .county of the same name in northwestern Quebec. It was established in 1943, having at that time an initial population of 2,012 beaver. This number has increased1 to 5,445 beaver. It is proposed to take this season an initial crop of 840 beaver with a market value of $33,600 at present price levels. The annual management costs have never exceeded $3,000.
Grand Lake Victoria hunting reserve. This is an area of 6,300 square miles located in the counties of Pontiac, Temiskaming, Abitibi and St. Maurice. While it has been under partial protection since 1928, it was brought under closer control in 1942. It now has a beaver population of 5,000 and produces 1,000 pelts annually.
Old Factory preserve. This is an area of 14,600 square miles located on the east coast of James bay and is designed1 to serve the needs of the 1,400 Indians at East Main, Factory River and Fort George. It was brought under management in 1942 when the initial count of beaver was 500. The beaver population is now 1,646.
Peribonca preserve. This is an area of approximately 12,600 square miles located in the lake St. John north shore section of Quebec and was established in 1941 for the benefit of the 1,400 Indians of the Bersimis and Pointe Bleue bands. The count in beaver in 1941 was 195 and this has now increased to 1,050 beaver.
In addition to the five projects mentioned, which are directly under the supervision of our department, we are cooperating with the provincial authorities in the creation of a system of trapline registrations. At present the system is in effect only in the Abitibi counties. Already sixty-nine Indians have been located on their own lines.
In the province of Ontario two substantial beaver preserves have been secured from the provincial government. Both are located- in the James bay area. The Kesagami preserve, an area of 6,000 square miles, was first put under management in 1942 at which time the population of beaver was 560. This has increased to 2.950. The Albany preserve is an area of 7,600 square miles. It was placed under management in 1948 with a count of 55 beaver. The population has now increased to 735. In connection with these two preserves, it should be mentioned that we have agreed with the provincial government to restock the area with a certain number of live beaver. Up to date we have trans-

planted 210 live beaver into these two areas which will hasten the time when they can be brought into production.
It is interesting to note that the annual management costs for the seven beaver preserves to which I have referred have not in any year exceeded $3,000 a preserve, this sum including as well all administrative expenses. The most of this money is paid to the Indian talleymen who are selected to protect the preserve during the period of conservation, which, of course, reduces the expenditures for relief that we would otherwise have to make. I should mention that the Indians are cooperating wholeheartedly in the development of these areas and guard them very jealously.
I am sure the members of the committee will have been interested in the progress that has been made in our programme. Muskrat farming and the development of areas for beaver on a large scale is an industry of tremendous possibilities. There are millions of acres susceptible to this form of development. To search them out and develop them is a challenge that will be met. We have in mind a very considerable enlargement of our programme in the post-war years. Our experience of public development of rat and beaver projects in Canada has been along a road leading to the goal of material assistance and a better way of life to the humbler crosssection of our Canadian social order. While yet in their infancy, the developments have already brought higher incomes, an improved standard of living, and an added feeling of self-respect and. self-reliance to many hundreds of Indian and half-breed families. They have been furnished an opportunity to engage in a vocation which they love and at which they are more adept than their white neighbours. These people have found themselves again and now have an entirely new' outlook for the future of their families. We believe we are now on the way toward a goal where from her fur resources alone Canada can make the trapping Indian and his half-breed cousin wholly self-supporting and independent.


George Hugh Castleden: What is the policy
of the department with regard to family allowances paid to Indians? Does the Indian agent get the family allowance cheque and administer it? Then, with regard to the Indians where there are residential schools, are the family allowances paid over to the schools for the Indian children w'ho are attending the schools or do they go directly to the parents?


James Allison Glen: We have appointed an officer, a returned soldier, who is dealing with that matter alone. In many cases payments are

Supply-Indian A fairs
made direct, but a great many payments are made in kind, because we are endeavouring to see that there is no abuse of the money. Where the officer is satisfied that abuses might take place he is arranging for payments to be made in kind, and at the present time that obtains over the whole system.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I understand that in
maternity cases Indians are not allowed to stay in 'hospital for more than five days. Is that so?


James Allison Glen: ' I would imagine that would depend very much on the seriousness of the case. I cannot imagine that anyone who needed hospitalization for more than five days would not receive it, because it would be inhuman to do otherwise.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: I understand that is
what is happening.


James Allison Glen: If the hon. member knows of any cases I should be very glad indeed to have the particulars of them, and investigate them, because nothing could be more inhuman.


John Bracken: The minister referred to the question of fur conservation and asked for the consent of the committee to put on the record the story of what has been done in that respect. I imagine he had reference to work that had been done in northern Manitoba. In that connection I wish to say a word as one who for many years had something to do with public life of that province. I want to thank the Department of Mines and Resources of the dominion government for the cooperation it has extended in one of the finest pieces of pioneering development work that I know of anywhere in Canada.' I shall therefore look forward with interest to reading the statement the minister is putting on Hansard.
I should like to say that as a result of cooperation between the provincial government and this department of the federal government one great potential resource which was giving practically no return to the people of that province has, by the application of common sense and the use of a little money, been turned into a very great resource. Through that cooperation the province was able to take many people off the unemployment rolls where they were costing the state a great deal of money. Many of those affected have since become self-supporting and have brought a large source of revenue to the community. I am sorry that the minister did not have an opportunity to outline that project. I suggest therefore, that those who are seeking work for governments to do which will be self-liquidating will not find anything more^ interesting
in any of the developments of Canada's natural resources than that little fur project in northern Manitoba.
I will not take time now to go farther with this matter, but I did wish to say that this is a splendid example of the result of cooperation between a provincial government and a department of the federal government.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: All I desire to say is that the chapter on the socialization of the muskrat is a thrilling chapter, and well worth reading.


John Bracken: I was not here part of the time when the minister was dealing with other items of his estimates, and I asked that one might be left on which I could ask a question in connection with road construction. Might I have permission to refer to that matter now?


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding) :: There will be supplementaries.


John Bracken: It will not take any longer now, Mr. Chairman, than it would then, and I understood that we might raise these matters now without objection.


James Allison Glen: Certainly.


John Bracken: I should like to ask the minister whether his department is now concerned with road construction to pioneer mining areas and to Canada's national parks, or whether that work is now being dealt with by some other department of the government. A few years ago this department did aid in constructing roads to certain of the pioneer mining areas of this country. If it still deals with that matter I should like to ask a question.


James Allison Glen: That is being discussed now between the Department of Mines and Resources and the Department of Reconstruction, and of course the projects will be worked out between those departments having in view the policy of the reconstruction department. Of course as the hon. gentleman knows, this department has always been trying to construct roads to make the national parks readily accessible, and we do not propose to relinquish that part of our duties in future, because we realize as well as anyone that the roads must be kept attractive to the tourists who wish to go to our parks, and we want as many tourists as we can get.


John Bracken: From' what the minister has said I know now he can answer my question. The dominion government cooperated with the province of Manitoba in building a road from the Pas in the direction of Flin Flon in the northwestern section of the prov-
Supply-Indian Affairs

ince. That road was partly built. At one time early in the war the question came up of making use of the Japanese to help finish it. At that time there wras an opportunity to have it finished, but for some reason it was thought unwise to have these men near the large mining project at Flin Flon. That is a little aside from the question at the moment. What I should like to ask now is whether the department 'has any plans for aiding the province in completing that road from the Pas to Flin Elon.


James Allison Glen: The practice has been in the past and will continue to be in future that the recommendations of the provinces in regard to where roads are to be located will be given first consideration by the Department of Mines and Resources. As far as that particular road is concerned, at the moment I could not say just what will be done, or when.


John Bracken: Is the department doing anything in the way of following up its previous policy of aiding in the construction of roads to pioneer mining areas?


James Allison Glen: Yes, we have an extensive programme of roads in connection with reconstruction.


John Bracken: Then I wish to put in a word with the department to provide funds to complete that road, which is now partly built. As it is now, Flin Flon has no highway connection with the outside. Unless this road is completed the money already spent will be largely wasted. I am referring to the road from the Pas to Flin Flon, Manitoba.
Since I am on that subject I should like to refer to another item. In dealing with the estimates concerning national parks, did the minister outline the policy of the department with respect to the establishment of new parks? Is the department proposing to do ahything in the way of establishing new national parks?


James Allison Glen: At the moment we have in mind several projects in different parts of the dominion. As the hon. gentleman knows, the first step is to have the province obtain the land. We have two or three projects just now in connection with which we are dealing with the respective provincial governments, who will provide the land, and when that time comes we shall be glad to cooperate in establishing national parks, for we believe in them.


John Bracken: Has the minister under consideration the establishment of a national park at lake Athapiipuskow in northwestern Manitoba?


James Allison Glen: No, I have no word of that at all.


John Bracken: Then I suggest that is one place the minister might have in mind for the establishment of a park. I know of no more acceptable natural site for a national park than that area, and I am surprised that the authorities of the progressive province of Manitoba have not brought it to the attention of the minister. I promise to stir them up and see that they do so.


James Allison Glen: They will now, I am sure.


Mr. ARCHIBALD:: I should like to direct the attention of the minister to a matter concerning Indians, and I do not know whether or not I am in order in doing so. The Indians are wards of the government. When they leave the reservation to work, say for a fish packing concern, what supervision does the government maintain over them? I am thinking of the Skeena river and the awful conditions under which the Indians have to live when working there. They have fairly large families; the rooms in which they live hre about ten by ten, and the sanitary conditions are such as to ruin their health. In the final analysis that comes back as an expense to this government. At the present time sanitary inspection is in the hands of the provincial government, and not very much is done about it. Could the Indian affairs branch not bring some pressure on these companies to have them supply decent houses for the Indians working in the fish packing plants?


James Allison Glen: We have had no representations recently in regard to the conditions of which the hon. member speaks, but we shall be very glad indeed to cooperate with the companies concerned. I will make a note of the suggestion and see what can be done.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: The other evening when we were on these estimates I asked the minister, and I think my leader also asked, what was the estimated annual fire loss, insect loss and cutting loss in our forests.


William Henry Golding: Order. This item has to do with grants to provide additional services to the Indians of British Columbia.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The only point ii that the minister said that he would put those figures on record, and I should like to know if he has them, ready now, before we finish his estimates.


James Allison Glen: The question of the hon. member was noted; I think it was in con-

Supply-Immigration
junction with one asked by the leader of the opposition. We are now preparing a statement which will be sent to the hon. member as soon as it is completed, but it has taken some time to search out the information.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Shall we have that before parliament prorogues?


James Allison Glen: I would hope so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
nil. Administration of the Immigration Act and-the Chinese Immigration Act, $182,524.
Mr. CROLL:: In speaking to the question of immigration, I realize that the only immigration the Canadian people are interested in at the present time is the return of the service men and women from overseas as quickly as possible. When they are back in suitable jobs, again leading normal lives, this country can turn its attention to immigration. That seems a little closer at hand than would first appear, from the statement made, I think yesterday, by the Minister of National Defence, who gave us some information as to how quickly they are coming home. I am sorry he is not in his seat at the moment, because I want not only to thank him for what he was doing, but to let him know that a great number of people in this country, particularly the young women and the mothers, are not only glad that he is bringing the boys back home alive, but that he is bringing them home alone, too.
My particular purpose in rising-and I believe this is an important question-is to bring to the attention of-the committee the needs of the country' with respect to immigration, so that the question can be not only surveyed but studied, and assessments made in the light of our attributes, facilities and possibilities. I say that not only because this is a country of security, but because it is one of opportunity. We have now the time to plan what we are going to do to-morrow. We have perhaps six months, or possibly a little longer than that, so that we can carefully and ambitiously make our plans.
Those plans have to follow a view different from that formerly held in this country, because in former years the great source of immigrants has been the British isles. But anyone who knows anything about the British isles-and I.could quote authorities to support me in this-knows that they will be able to absorb all their own man-power for the next five or ten years, and that they will have to keep everybody in Great Britain. We know, too, that Great Britain is suffering from a declining birthrate.
It is true that some of the Royal Air Force personnel who trained in this country will be anxious to return here, and that they will be welcomed. Some of them may be permitted to come to this country. But the great well which we formerly had in the British isles will be dried un for many years to come.
When we turn to the Scandinavian countries, none of us would for a moment suggest that Finland, Norway, or Sweden would be a source of immigrants for some considerable time in the future.
Turning once again to continental Europe, we must realize that, too, is of a doubtful nature, because Europe to-day is going through not only a sortipg but also a settling process. They need all available man-power in Europe, first to keep what to some minds for the present seems to be a doubtful peace, and, second, to rebuild destroyed Europe. Many hon. members who were over there will know that when I say "destroyed" I mean just exactly that. That is going to be a longtime and a full-time job, we can depend upon it. [DOT]
There has come about recently in this country a new realization, a new perspective and a new understanding on the question of immigation, and it has come from some rather unexpected placed. I hold in my hand a report of the Imperial Bank of Canada, whose president, Mr. R. S. Waldie, says:
It should be noted that the reduction of the general overhead expenses of our economy depend in large measure on an increase in the density of our population which lessens especially the transportation and administration charges per unit of production.
Them, Mr. McGowan, director of the Canadian National Railways, said on November 30:
The admission of more people would increase Canada's prosperity and _ assist in its development. When the dominion's population is doubled, it will raise the standards of living.
I quote again from the Toronto Globe and Mail of December 5, in which Mr. J. S. Duncan, president of the Massey-Harris Company Limited, is reported to have said in a Montreal speech:
Canada has to be realistic about the future economic position of the country and the necessity of expanding export trade as well as the home market for Canadian goods. _ He recommended adoption of a selective immigration policy to increase the population.
The general tenor of these press comments from different sources is that there is a need for more people in this country, and the approach is such that plans must be realistic, intelligent, and rational. From the economic point of view it will be said that we need purchasing power, and we need those with
Supply-I mmigration

whom we may divide the national debt- unless someone will devise some method of getting rid of it otherwise.
I do not want to proceed further without expressing a word of thanks to the government of Canada which, in the midst of the war, offered not only sanctuary but a haven and hospitality to great numbers of people who were refugees, who came to this country from all nations, and who helped in our war effort. The government realized that, and in due time gave them permanent landing in Canada. In view of those landings, and' in view of the services they have rendered the country, in due time they have earned the right to be joined by whatever remnants there may be of their families still remaining in continental Europe; and I hope the minister will put this high on his priority list.
Last week in the committee on veterans affairs some startling figures were revealed, and I believe they will prove of interest to hon. members. We have about 17,000 returned men training for various jobs, but of that number only 1,600 are training for the building trades. At the time these figures were revealed, I said that I thought it was a tragedy to find that we have not a larger number who are joining what might be described as the aristocrats of labour. Canadians are not soft; we proved that in this war, and even before the war. Our standard of living is fairly high, and we are striving to improve it.
Hon. members may interpret these figures as they wish, but it strikes me that we have about reached the stage in this country where we need some hired help on our farms. We need some others who will do the heavy work. In my short experience in public life I have had something to ,do with unemployment, andi I know something of the hardships unemployed people have suffered. But in all my experience the people who, somehow, were always able to make a living were the carpenters, the bricklayers and the plumbers. We have always looked upon those trades as offering honourable and fine ways of earning a living. I think there is something sad when one considers the fact that young men are not entering these trades which offer good prospects in the immediate future, particularly for the next ten years.
My suggestion is that the government have both a short-term and a long-term policy. I would say that its short-term policy should be based fifst upon humanitarian principles. All that many citizens in this country have left is to be found somewhere in continental Europe, and I suggest that they should be given the first opportunity to come to this country. Next, not only must we open our

doors, but we must open our hearts to the orphans of Europe-and there are thousands of them over there-who in the future will pay such great dividends. I do not know whether we have made any commitments during the war, but if we have we would in due course honour them.
Then, I think we should have a long-term policy. We must be able to assess our future needs, and our ability to absorb, because the post-war immigration problem will be a very heavy one. I think all hon. members agree with me when I say that we need people, and that we have to do something about it.
My suggestion to the minister is that he divorce immigration from agriculture and set up as quickly as possible after we come back next year an immigration committee to make a special study of this particular problem, to hear evidence, to make a survey and then to make recommendations. For instance, for a long time and up until quite recently labour has had a fear of immigration. I do not think they are of that view now, but they have held that view for too long. I think industry should be heard, and business, the church, veterans, economists, scientists, professional men and anyone who can contribute to the cause, so that the committee could form a broad plan for the general welfare of Canada. The committee could study the question of assimilation, so that we can bring in people who believe in our way of life. It could give consideration to the part that people had played in this war, to their physical attributes, to their character, skills, training, trades, commercial experience, business attributes and agricultural experience.
If we set up this committee we could have a plan ready long before the beginning of the following year. Not only could we have men in the field; we could be ready to take in whoever we could absorb. In the past our policy has been based on pressure by special groups. That method is now outmoded and outworn; the time for that has long passed. It does not fit into the present world. All our thoughts and all our legislation in the past were pointed toward exclusion and restriction;
I think we have come to the time when we have not only to admit but to welcome people to our country. I am not suggesting an open door; I am not suggesting a closed door; I think the time has come for the door to be left ajar.
While I am on my feet I cannot help saying to the minister that we have on our statute books at the present time a great deal of racial nonsense. It is time to get it off the books. Racism is bad whether it comes from

Supply-Immigration
Canadians or Germans. The exponents of racism are now attending the Nuernberg rally and they do not like it. We are glad they do not like it. It is not our business to emulate them in any way at all.
We must plan our immigration policy of the future and we must not be afraid of planning. There is nothing wrong about democratic planning. We have to assess our needs and know our ability to absorb. We should budget for people the same way as we budget for everything else. We have reached that stage. Men- and women in this country plan their families and sometimes they make mistakes. We may make mistakes too, but it is time that we started to plan our Canadian family.
Sometimes I wonder, with the world fighting for liebestraum, if we have a moral right to sit on half a continent which has the largest amount of arable land in all the continent and close the door to the rest of the peoples. I submit that we have arrived at a time when we can formulate a policy that will stand up. We can no longer afford to deal with immigration on the basis of expediency and prejudice. Our economy is undergoing a serious change and we have to change with it. We are no longer a frontier land; we are on the top of the heap of the middle powers. We have obligations and responsibilities and we must live up to them.
I suggest to the minister that he lose no time after we come back to set up an immigration committee to study and plan so that we can do something intelligent about it. I am not going to say anything about his department for the last four, five or six years. Let us agree that it was dormant; there was a war on, but there is no excuse for not doing anything now, because we have time on our hands. It will be April or May before we have everybody back in this country, although I hope it will be sooner. We should lay our plans and get our policy ready. We should have our agents where they are needed and be ready to take people into this country; we should have all the necessary machinery ready.
I said a few moments ago that the people of Europe will not be available. Do not be mistaken; the people of Europe want to come here but their governments will not permit them because they need them at home. The Minister of Fisheries will remember when we had to put up signs in Europe in Dutch or French, meaning immigration impossible. Otherwise those people kept bothering us. They were all anxious to leave the country, but the governments need them at home. I
know very well that the Dutch government has its plans for its colonies, and so has the Belgian government. They have neglected their colonies for too long and so they have trouble on their hands. If there are to be people to export, they will send them out there. It seemed to be the desire of every boy I met to leave those countries. It will not be just as easy as it seems. We must be careful and make sure to have our plans ready. If we plan well we can make much of it.


Mr. WINTERS:: The previous speaker, my sometimes seatmate, the hon. member for Spadin-a, has covered the general question of immigration, and very well indeed. I agree with what he has said, but just for a moment I would direct the attention of the committee to one specific phase of immigration. I refer to people who are already in Canada and who are a most desirable type of citizen. I could speak generally on that point, but for just a moment I should like to deal specifically with Norwegians.
In my constituency there is a sizable colony of Norwegians, and I understand there is a number of them in other constituencies across Canada. These Norwegians came to us under the trying conditions of warfare in Europe. Many of them were on the high seas when Norway fell, and many others escaped from under the very eyes of the Germans and reached Canada under conditions of the most extreme hardship. They have since played an important part in Canadian life. They have entered into community affairs, and they have taken an important part in Canada's . war effort, both in the armed services and as civilians. They have shown themselves to be temperamentally equipped to be Canadian citizens.
In many cases these Norwegians have married Canadian girls and have children. It is quite understandable that both they and their families want to stay in Canada and I think we should want them to stay here. As I understand it, until recently the attitude of the department toward these Norwegians was not very clear, and there were grave doubts in their minds as to just what that attitude was. I have had many letters from these Norwegians and from their sympathizers, who are many, asking that every possible action be taken to see that they are encouraged to stay in Canada. I have referred these letters to the minister, and I must say that in every instance they have been given sympathetic consideration. These people are grateful for this cooperation. As I understand it, the present policy is that if a Norwegian is
Supply-I mmigra tion

temporarily in Canada and has married a Canadian girl he is entitled to remain. The eases of the single men are judged on their individual merits. I believe that is correct; is that not. so?


James Allison Glen: Yes.


Robert Henry Winters: There is, as I say, this uncertainty in their minds. My desire tonight is to urge on the government that they show these Norwegians every encouragement. They have proved that they are desirable citizens, and the government should lose no time in making its attitude clear to them so that the}' will know exactly where they stand and that they are welcome here in Canada.


Anthony Hlynka: It is quite obvious that the committee will not have much time to discuss Canada's immigration policy at any length in the remaining two days of this session.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: One day.


Anthony Hlynka: But this extremely important and urgent problem should receive proper consideration at the earliest opportunity during the next session. I should like to make one or two general references on the subject before dealing briefly with a specific aspect of immigration.
First, let me read one or two passages and observations of the Edmonton chamber of commerce report dated October 15, 1945, which indicates their stand on the subject of immigration, and with a good number of whose recommendations I agree. The report states:
Your committee is definitely in favour of a national immigration policy designed to increase the population of Canada ... It believes that an increase in population through immigration would improve Canada's position and influence in world affairs and would strengthen also the power of the British commonwealth of nations. It would enable this country particularly to adjust her domestic economy by providing more diversified and larger home markets, and it would also reduce the per capita expenses of the many government and other services which a modern nation is expected to provide for her citizens.
Canada has tremendous assets in its resources of raw materials, in the strong foundation which - has been established for an elaborate system of transportation, in its productive and industrial equipment, which has become increasingly strengthened during the war, and in the quality of its present population. This country has maintained its democratic institutions and has shown that it believes in a policy of voluntary cooperation, having regard and respect for a policy that individual freedom and personal initiative should be retained within the framework of a scheme of collective action and security.

I should like to mention one or two other points raised in this report. I believe that they are presented, in a most vivid and clear manner:
That machinery should be set up immediately with a view to the formation of a policy designed to attract to Canada those elements in the population of Europe, and possibly of certain .other countries who would best contribute to the economic stability and cultural growth of this dominion without imperilling the free institutions . . .
I agree wholeheartedly with the remark made to-night by the hon. member for Spadina that we should undertake to study this problem closely and carefully at the next session, and I believe that the question should be referred to a committee of this house and properly investigated and studied so that we may arrive at logical conclusions.
I find that the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of November 10, 1945, in discussing editorially the order in council of October 26, 1945, granting official admission to refugees who entered Canada during the war-and at this time I should like to compliment the minister and the government upon passing that order in council; I think it w'as the only stand they could properly take and I am glad they did take it-points out:
In these circumstances the Canadian government has taken the wise course of permitting these people to remain indefinitely in Canada. No doubt arrangements will be made whereby those who desire to do so may acquire Canadian citizenship and proceed to build new lives in this country . . . But the point of the new regulation permitting these people to stay which will appeal to most Canadians is the recognition it takes of a serious human problem. Aside from any consideration of economic interests, Canada owes a duty to the unfortunates of Europe and should share its good things with as many as possible of these unfortunate people.
I agree wholeheartedly with that view; and to-night I should like to make reference to one specific phase of immigration policy which I believe the government should adopt.
I appeal to the minister to give first consideration to stateless or displaced persons who find themselves to-day in Europe. Regardless of racial origin, these groups of people, should, I believe, have priority over all others. Of course I understand that in the first place we should bring back the men of our armed forces and their families. But following these two group, the government, in my opinion, has a moral and a Christian obligation to these unfortunate people of Europe who to-day find themselves scattered in practically every country in the old land, without homes, without food, without shelter, and without hope. I want to make as strong a plea as I possibly can on behalf of these

Supply-Immigra tion
tormented and unfortunate people, who perhaps have during the war sacrificed much more for us then we would sacrifice for them.
May I point out that this group comprises the democratically-minded people who had to move on into western Europe when totalitarianism was advancing. I. find that in the Edmonton chamber of commerce report the fear is expressed that it may be impossible for us, or perhaps too late, to get some of these people to come to Canada. The report continues:
It is obvious therefore that, if we wish a national increment in population through immigration to Canada, the federal government, collaborating with the provincial governments and industry, labour and agriculture, must make plans at once before it becomes too late.
The Edmonton chamber of commerce, after studying this problem carefully, have come to the conclusion that it may not be so easy to get these people to come to Canada as we may think.
I should like to make one or two other references to the arguments that are being advanced by some government officials and other individuals against admitting people into Canada at this time. In the first place, they argue that there is no passenger accommodation on ships and that therefore this problem cannot be considered at the present time. In the second place, they argue that no immigration should be encouraged until our returned men are reestablished in peace-time occupations. I agree that that is the view which we should take. At the same time, however, I would point out that the immigrants who would come to Canada would not for the most part know the English language and therefore could not displace our returned men. In the third place-at least I gather this from some of the correspondence which I have received, as well as correspondence which has been handed to me by others-the government does not feel that immigration should be allowed until our economic system is adjusted. But, Mr. Chairman, some of these people in Europe will be dead by that time. They cannot wait until we adjust our economic system; and besides, the individuals who are interested in bringing these people to Canada are ready to guarantee and to provide a livelihood for their relatives. The fourth argument used is of course a weak one, that nothing can be done "at the present time". That argument does not answer any question; it is no argument. And the last argument that is used was that these people would have to present their passports before being allowed to come in.
May I point out that during this war hundreds of thousands of people were trying to
save their very lives and had no chance of saving or of obtaining passports. I was glad to find that the British government took the only logical and humanitarian stand on the question. In spite of our desire to rush through our estimates and finish this session,
I think I ought to put on the record an announcement which appeared in the Times of London, England, on November 14, 1945. The reason I wish to put it on the record is simply to show that the British isles, which are so crowded, where they have not even sufficient food for their own people and no housing accommodation, decided that anyone residing in Britain might bring in relatives, and not later on but now.
Perhaps I should not weary the committee by putting this on the record, but the essence of the point I wish to make is simply this. Despite the fact that they have no room for more immigration, that the returned men are not rehabilitated as yet, that their economic position is not stabilized, the British government is allowing these people to come in. I am happy to say that in spite of the fact that the government in Britain has changed recently, the people of Britain have not changed in their humanitarian attitude toward this problem.
I was disappointed that Canada was not the first nation to make that move. Canada should have been ithe country to make the announcement, to say. "We have these open spaces; we have natural wealth with which that of no other nation is comparable. Why, therefore, should we not welcome as many of these people as we can?" I know the argument i3 that there were no ships. But as the member for Spadina pointed out, our men will be brought back by the spring at the latest, and their families shortly after that. Surely it would take several months to issue permits of admission to these people. Why not undertake now to issue those permits and have them post-dated? The only request I make to-night on behalf of these displaced persons in particular is this-because the broader aspect of the immigration problem will be discussed at the next session, whether we desire an increase in our population-that we help these people by announcing that we are ready to accept a certain quota of them now and that we shall issue to them post-dated permits of admission. If this were done, those who are in Britain, or France, or in parts of Germany and elsewhere would know that there was something to look forward to. Surely we can do that.
May I make one or two other observations. I notice that in one of the orders in council passed in recent years there is a strict require-
Supply-Immigration

ment of medical inspection. In a general immigration policy I agree that proper health safeguards should be maintained, but I hold that it is not reasonable to demand robust health of those who have undergone the suffering, privation and hunger and all the hardships that these people have experienced. We cannot expect any high standard of health from these displaced persons. That is hardly the thing for us to do. What we should do is to try to save some of these lives. We must remember that many of these people find themselves where they are to-day because they fought the battle on the hattlefield. They are the ones who went through the privations and horrors of war, while we in Canada enjoyed perhaps the highest standard of living we ever had. There was not a single acre of land scorched in this country; there was not a single home bombed out at night; there was not a single family that did not have a roof over their heads; therefore I consider that we should consider this problem purely from the Christian and humanitarian viewpoint. I appeal to the minister and to the government to give most sympathetic consideration to the suggestions I have made.


Mr. SKEY:: I had intended to speak for some time on this subject, but it has been so ably covered by the hon. member for Vegre-ville (Mr. Hlynka) that I feel I can make my remarks very brief. I should like to support him in what he has said to-night and to add my word to the need for planning, the need for a committee on immigration), and to emphasize our moral duty to stateless and displaced persons.
I consider that our greatest need to-day is a committee on immigration. There are so many intricate problems coming up with regard to nationals of many countries that unless they earn be brought before a committee to be discussed privately and the difficulties ironed out, I feel that in the next session the minister will have a tremendous task before him. I think we are all aware of the problems and difficulties that are facing the government to-day with respect to immigration and the problem of dealing fairly with the nationals of many countries. We know there are transportation difficulties in repatriating our soldiers, war brides, and their children. We know there is a critical shortage of housing, an unemployment problem and many other problems. But we have such tremendous resources in this country that we can absorb a moderate number of people and discharge this moral duty within the next few years.
I am one who is most anxious to do everything I can to further that great work. I should like to make one reference to the

work of an eminent historian, Mr. Griffiths Taylor. I do not altogether share his opinion for in this work he analyses Canada's position and outlines the number of people who might be settled here. He says that Manitoba could support 63,000,000 people, that eastern Canada could support 96,000,000 people and that adjoining regions could support 30,000,000 people. That makes a total of 189,000,000. That is not my opinion but that of Mr. Griffiths Taylor, 'an eminent geographer and historian.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Where is he?


Lawrence Wilton Skey: University of Melbourne,
Australia.


Mr. MARTIN:: Professor Hurd of Me-Master university has made a different analysis.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Perhaps the Secretary of State is right. I have had other forecasts that go up to 100 million for Canada or fifty million for Ontario, and so on. I am only endeavouring to prove that there are estimations that this country has the land and supplies to support a much larger number of people than we havb at the present time. At least we could support double our present population.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: How long was he in Canada?


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I am sorry, but in the preface he does not give any indication.
I can give the committee another figure *which may interest it. For the whole North American continent he estimates a total of 702 million; the eastern United States, 298 millions. That is based on natural resources; coal, iron, fertility, rainfall, electric power and many other things. It is an analytical treatise, not a work of fiction.
However, I shall not delay the committee any longer than to put on record a resolution recently passed in Toronto which shows how the citizens of that city feel toward the present situation in Europe. The first point is that the right of asylum should be granted to displaced persons in western Europe; second, that the displaced people should be provided with lodgings, food, clothing and. medical care for such time until a way can be found to reestablish them permanently; third, that every effort should be made to reestablish displaced people in a country where they can live out their lives peaceably without fear of want or persecution. These are the resolutions of one committee. I have also a special request from

Supply-Immigration
one section of the community, which is in the form of a letter to the Prime Minister. It refers to the Polish people and says:
As the Prime Minister of a mighty and most respected nation, and as one in whose power lies the granting of our wish ... we beg you to admit into Canada discharged servicemen of the Polish forces who wish to settle here and give them the opportunity to love the freedom and heritage of a noble and democratic power, just as we value it beyond worldly expression.
These are just two quotations from the letters and resolutions which have come into my hands.
May I conclude my remarks with a word to the department. In my dealings with them I have been met with extreme courtesy and helpfulness. I know they have been tremendously overworked by the problems that have been thrust upon them. I am glad to see that there is some increase in their estimates to help- them deal with the problems that are before them. I hope that in the future able men will not be so closely bound by a rigid Immigration Act which gives us practically no power to select and very little opportunity to bring good and loyal fighting men and their families to this country. I have served with a number of these men to whom I am referring, namely, Polish airmen. I know the tremendous loyalty, courage and powers of endurance which they possess. I know they would be good citizens; I know it is the feeling of the men in the armed forces of this country that they would like to welcome them to Canada and to have them as citizens. In the past we have accepted new Canadians, as they are called in many communities, without any attempt to nationalize them. I know the Secretary of State will be interested in the suggestion that when we bring new people to this country we do not cast them on the mercy of a community or make it necessary for a few friends or relatives to care for them. When we bring them to this country we should bring them into a nationalization centre where they can learn something of our institutions and the growth of a democratic state, where they can learn to appreciate the way of life which we live, and learn to love our country as we love it.


Fred Rose: What I wish to speak about now is not mass immigration, because we all agree that our first responsibility is to the men overseas. Until they are back and settled in jobs, and we know exactly what Canada's economic position will be, it would be very hard for anyone to say that we should open our doors wide and let everyone come in. I want to speak more specifically about the people who suffered most as a result of
Hitler's barbarism; that is, the Jewish people.
I do not believe any hon. member can speak with more feeling about this matter, because I was born in a city in Poland, and I know the exact spot where a million and a half Jews were murdered by the nazis; that is, at the Maidanek camp in Lublin. Therefore I feel much more strongly about this matter than most hon. members, who have only read about it.
The Ottawa Citizen of this evening, telling about the Nuernberg trial of the twenty-one top leaders of Hitler's gang, states that six million Jews were ruthlessly slaughtered in the nazi campaign of extermination, according to the figures of the German secret police. Some Jews saved themselves in almost miraculous ways. They, escaped from the camps; they hid their identity; they were saved by non-Jews. In these ways some of them managed to remain alive. They are not in the best of health; as a matter of fact they are very weak, having gone through hell, and I cannot find any more polite word to describe it. Some are' still kept in concentration camps in the American and British zones. The other day we heard Mrs. Lorna Wingate, the widow of General Orde Wingate of Wingate's raiders, who made a very strong plea on behalf of the Jewish people to about one hundred members of this house. She also spoke in the city of Toronto where, in referring to the Jews in camps in western Europe, she said:
These Jews are living ghosts . . . They have gone through hell and nave come out the other side. Their home is a concentration camp where the bones of their brothers and sisters lie buried in a few feet of earth. They are fenced in as they were when the Germans were their masters. Their food allotment is less than the Germans who stare at them from outside the fences
I am not asking that we bring to Canada all those left alive in Europe, but I am appealing particularly on behalf of those who have in this country relatives who are willing to bring them here and look after them, without taking a single job away from anyone. I have here some appeals coming from such people in western Europe. Here is a letter from one who was a lieutenant in the Polish army. He was taken prisoner by the Germans in 1939 and liberated by the Americans. His parents live in Montreal and are citizens of this country. He writes to them in English, as follows:
Six years captivity may achieve very, very much! I have got used to many things; above all to endure every injury, to submit to all decrees of fate, and to persevere in patience. But day goes after day, and the years are fleeting. . . . The most irritating and painful problem now is the open question-what to do, whither to go?
Supply-Immigration

He concludes by appealing to his parents to bring him to Canada. A permit was issued to this man allowing him to come to this country in 1928, but now he is told that he may not come. He had a. wife and child in Warsaw. They are dead. He has no one but his parents and other relatives who are in Montreal, but he cannot come here because the department tells us that there are no ships. I insist, however, that Portuguese ships would bring these people h^re if their relatives were permitted to arrange passage for them. Here is a letter from a girl eighteen years old, written through the Red Cross. She says:
I was five years in a concentration camp in Auschwitz-
And Auschwitz camp, according to the evidence reported from Nuernberg to-day, is the place where a million and a half people were murdered.

and have nobody in the world only my uncle. I beg you very much for an answer.
Well, she can get no answer because under present conditions there is a strict ruling in effect even against these people who have lost their families in Europe and have relatives only in Canada. None of them ever helped Hitler; they were always his greatest opponents; they have suffered most at his hands; yet to-day they cannot come to this country.
I wish to make an appeal on their behalf. Even before the next session of this parliament something must be done to give a spark of hope to people who cannot think of returning to the places where their relatives lie dead' as a result of barbarous treatment and murder. Our humanity should be such that we would give these people an affirmative answer and say, "You can come to Canada. We will do at least this much to make up for the suffering you have gone through."


Mrs. STRUM:: I wish to say just a few words on behalf of a specialized group of those who have suffered from the dislocation of Europe.
I believe some very fine ideas have been advanced to-night, but I also believe there are a few things which are quickly forgotten in connection with this whole situation. We have just finished a dreadful war. While that war was in progress we said to those people, "This is your war and ours, and it will be your victory and ours." Then the shooting stopped; the papers were signed, and we came to the parting of the wa3's. They went on to hunger, exposure and disease; we returned to warmth and prosperity. But I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this is our peace; this is our joint victory and our joint responsibility. We who are more prosperous now than we have ever been, because of war, cannot disown 
these brothers ini arms who gave their lives, their children, their homes and everything they had in the cause we supported. These people who joined underground movements and deliberately destroyed their bridges, their shipping, their railways, their factories and their resources, believed that when peace came we would restore these things which they so cheerfully sacrificed. We whose national income was tripled during the war now grudgingly vote them one per cent of it. I think our contribution to UNRRA is shamefully small; and I believe that the attitude we have adopted so far in regard to the victims of this struggle is unworthy of this great country.
One group deserves special consideration, and for a moment I am going to talk about the children of Europe. Recently I had the pleasure of talking to several persons who came a short time ago from that unhappy continent. They tell us that there are various groups who need to be sorted out, before we shall know exactly how many there are. Then there are the orphans of Europe, those whose parents died in concentration camps, in slave labour camps, and those children who have been orphaned because their parents were actively engaged in the underground movement. Those children have given everything.	.
Then there are the unhappy children who are the result of the dislocation of war. A very fine Quaker lady told us a week or so ago that in Norway, alone, there are thousands of children born of German fathers, who are considered to be a blot and a reproach. They are the unwanted children, the result of the invasion, and Norway now would like someone to take them off their hands. These are the unhappy by-products flowing from the dislocation and upheaval of war. We cannot ignore them. We who gained so much cannot say now that the war is over, "this is Canada; this is our country, and we have no further obligation." We cannot do that sort of tiling.
I am pleased that there are those in every group in the house who are prepared to rise in their places and say that they will not be a party to any action of that kind. The children of Europe to whom we could give shelter would not compete in our labour market, nor would they be a charge on the government. In a radio broadcast I delivered a few weeks ago I spoke to the people of my constituency, and the people in the surrounding area. This was a speech delivered in the "Report From Parliament Hill" series. In my broadcast I asked those people to write to me letting me know whether they knew German families who would take German children,

Supply-Immigration
Polish families who would take Polish children, or people from other European countries who had come to Canada, who are now Canadians and who would be willing to accept children from various parts of Europe. I was delighted with the response. I have received letters every day from people who are only too anxious to help, and who are waiting for us to open the doors so that these children may be let in. I have here a letter from a young . doctor and his wife, who is Scottish. They have a child of their own, and they ask now for a Polish child, because they say that the Polish people suffered more than any others.
Then, I have figures here to show what Great Britain has done. Let us remember that Great Britain has always been overcrowded, that it is one of the most heavily populated countries in the world, and that a third of her homes were either damaged or destroyed. But in the midst of scarcity, privation and overcrowding, this is what Britain did, as described in a speech by Mr. Anthony Eden in the British House of Commons in December, 1943:
As regards our own country since May, 1940, all of it a difficult period for us, we have taken some 60,000 non-British refugees and they are still coming in at the rate of about 800 a month. Great Britain is continuing to give 'accommodation to displaced persons.
As was stated recently by the hon. member for Vegreville, they are allowing non-British people who are now resident in Great Britain to accept their relatives, and to give them homes in that country. I hope we shall not wait for the next session of parliament to set up a committee. I hope that we who are so comfortable, so callous and so smug will open our hearts and begin to make preparations, so that when these children are sorted out and are made available we shall be in a position gladly to accept thousands of them. Our Canadian homes are 'waiting to take them in.


Norman Jaques: I wish to make only two or three remarks. It seems to me there are two ways of looking at this question of immigration. One, of course, is from the point of view of relieving the distressed in Europe, and the other way is that of looking at the-question from the point of view of benefiting Canada. I am not one who believes that merely by bringing in immigrants Canada automatically will be benefited. We have had a lesson of that in the past. If Canada is to benefit from bringing in more immigrants, then I feel that we shall have to make conditions in Canada such that the immigrants will be glad and willing to stay after they get here.
That cannot be said of the past. I have been in Canada since 1901. I do not know the number of people who have come here during that time-it would run into the millions, I suppose-but I do know that in the same time very nearly as many people have left Canada because they thought the United States and other countries offered greater opportunities.
Therefore it seems to me that apart altogether from the humanitarian point of view, if Canada is to benefit by having more immigrants, then we certainty shall have to see to it that after they get here they will be able to find opportunities and to maintain a standard of living which will induce them to stay here, and which will not encourage them to look abroad for somewhere else to go, as they have done in the past.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I .do not wish to speak at length, but this is a matter of great importance and I should like to say a few words about it.
I want it to be clear that in approaching this question of immigration I am not unmindful of the fact that Canadian service personnel and war brides should receive first priority in the matter of entrance to this country. We do not ignore that necessity.
However, when that situation has been relieved to the point where some people can be allowed into Canada, may I point out that there are a few things requiring consideration. There are immediate problems, "and long-range problems and policies.
The immediate problem seems to be that of finding ways and means of helping those millions of people in Europe who have been roaming up and down from one country to another, and who are classified as displaced and sometimes as stateless people.
About a week ago I attended a lecture in Ottawa addressed by Mr. Edward Cahill of Boston, Massachusetts. This gentleman was in Europe not long ago, and he had seen at first hand something of the problem of displaced persons. I am sure that any other hon. members who heard him must have felt much the same way as I did. Some of the experiences he described were sufficient to give one the creeps. Among other things he said that there were anywhere from 20,000,000 to 30,000,000 people in Europe to-day who could be classified as displaced. They find themselves in the position where they do not know how they are going to live through the winter. In fact, he predicted that unless something unforseen and almost miraculous is done there will be hundreds of thousands and perhaps several million who will not see the spring.
Supply-Immigration

He pointed out also that malnutrition has advanced so far that there are hundreds of thousands of people in Europe who, even though they are fed the best of food for the rest of the winter, will still die of starvation. I am told by my medical friends that when malnutrition reaches a certain stage it becomes a sort of disease which mere food will not cure. In other words, there are thousands of people who are already doomed to death.
What about those who can still be saved? I believe we should be able to receive a certain number of these displaced persons or refugees. I say that because of what other speakers have said about Great Britain. We have a lesson to learn there. If a country like Great Britain, which has suffered far beyond anything that we can imagine, is still able to extend her hand to her neighbours and welcome them, surely we in this country who are so well off in proportion should be able to do a great deal more.
Let us not be afraid of accepting refugees. There has been a great deal of speculation in this country about that question. Let me refer again to Great Britain. One reason why Britain became great is the fact that she was always tolerant and broad-minded when it came to political refugees. She has always been ready to open her doors and allow freedom of expression for those from other countries. The Flemish weavers and the Hugue-, nots and others brought new skills and a new outlook that helped to build Great Britain to what she is to-day. I believe there is room in Canada for new skills and new aptitudes and perhaps new points of view.
I wish to make this clear, because unfortunately I have been accused lately by certain people of advocating the bringing into this country of nazi collaborationists. Anyone who has heard what I have said in this chamber can say that is not true. Let me make it perfectly clear that I am not advocating and never have advocated the bringing into this country of nazi collaborationists. I am one of those who denounced Hitler and Mussolini publicly many years before the war, at a time when some of these accusers of mine thought they were pretty fine fellows. I wish to make it perfectly clear that I do not want nazi collaborators in this country. I make that statement definitely, emphatically and without reservation. I hope that will be clear enough.
I want to see' people in this country, regardless of where they come from or what their nationality is, who believe in the principles of democratic freedom. I believe we shall find among the refugees of Europe some of the best democrats in the world. The
rMr. Zaplitny.]
fact that they have found it necessary to become refugees, to get away from totalitarian rule, proves that they have the principles of democracy and freedom so deeply in their hearts that they were willing to suffer privation in order to preserve them. So much for the immediate problem.
Then a word as to the long-range policy. I should like to point out that there definitely is room for expansion in this country, and I should like to give a few figures to illustrate . what I mean. In 1851 there were in this country 2,312,919 people; in 1941 there were 11,506,665 people, an increase of about 9,000,-
000.	Of that number, over ,6,000,000 were immigrants. Roughly speaking, two-thirds of the increase between those two dates was made up of immigrants. I do not know what the target should 'be for the future; I do not know what we should aim at or what we want our population to be at any given date, but from those figures we can see that there is certainly room to carry on if we are to have an expansionist attitude in this country.
The attitude of labour and of the veterans on this question is quite clear. I wish to put that on the record, because it is important to make it clear that anything I may say to-night or at any time is not intended to clash with the views of organized labour. We in this group have always tried to look after the interests of labour. I should like to put on record the attitude of the Trades and Labour Congress and the Canadian Congress of Labour toward immigration. First, I should like to read a resolution adopted by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada at their 1944 convention, reading as follows:
Whereas there is a demand in some quarters for a softening of the restrictions on immigration to this country;
And whereas the war in Europe has created a terrific refugee problem in connection with the mass flight of hundreds of thousands of innocent victims of the nazis;
Therefore be it resolved

that Canada's Immigration Act be revised to make it possible for Canada to do her share in granting refuge to her full quota of refugees;
And be it further resolved-that a policy of accepting immigrants into this country be pursued so long as such policy in no way adversely affects living standards or the welfare of our present Canadian population.
The following is a resolution passed by the Canadian Congress of Labour ait its convention held in 1944:
Be it resolved that the Canadian Congress of Labour in convention assembled request the dominion government to institute a concrete plan of immigration during the post-war period, without any danger of displacement of present labour, and along the following plan:

Supply-Immigration
(1)	The selection of immigrants whose personal training and qualifications will permit them to be used in the development of the sections of Canada that are not being fully utilized, as well as in new developments of industry for which they are fitted.
(2)	The acceptance of only those immigrants who are able to pass a reasonable health examination.
(3)	Every possible assistance to be given them in developing and maintaining a standard of living comparable to that existing in the dominion at the time of their arrival.
I should like to place on the- record the attitude of the veterans as outlined in the publication Canadian Veterans. This article reads:
One thing is certain:	that no intelligent
Canadian can possibly expect that the open spaces of this dominion are going to go unpopulated long in a world where people are starving for want of arable soil-a world in which all sections are neighbours within a day's journey of each other.
Sooner or later those spaces are going to be filled. It is up to us, just as soon as our veterans are settled, to eschew any dog-in-the-manger attitude that may exist, and to spread out arms 

judiciously-to immigration.
The attitude of those three organizations is fairly similar; they are in favour of an immigration and expansionist policy as long as proper safeguards are taken to make sure that the interests of organized labour and the discharged veterans are not affected. That is the attitude I am taking to-night and that is the attitude of our group.
I agree with what the hon. members for Spadina and Trinity said about the necessity of having a committee on immigration. I should like to add to what they said by suggesting that when this committee is set up it should receive advice from representatives of labour and agriculture, and from -the professional groups, so that it will receive the representations of all the different classifications and occupations in Canada.
I was interested in hearing what the hon. member for Wetaskiwin had to say about immigrants coming to Canada but not remainT ing here. That is true. I have figures here from the Canada Year Book which show that six out of ten persons who came to Canada as immigrants left for some other country, the greater part of them going to the United States. The reason for that is fairly obvious. If the people who come here cannot find what they are seeking; if they cannot find occupations that will give them a good standard of living, naturally they will go where they can find what they want. I believe that in that connection our immigration will be tied up with our economic system. If we adopt an economic system based on a policy of expansion, of making the greatest possible use of our natural resources, it will be possible for us not only to keep up a high standard of
living for our people at present in Canada but also to admit thousands more. If, on the other hand, we adopt a policy of contraction; that is, if we allow ourselves to drift back to the system -in the years of the dark thirties, then it will be a question not of immigration into this country, but of emigration to somewhere else.
'Mr. GAUTHIER (Portneuf) (Translation): Mr. Chairman, I shall be brief in the remarks I have to make. May I say, at the outset, that the note I shall strike to-night will not be in complete harmony with the concert you have just heard in support of immigration.
Some hon. members advocate a fairly massive immigration, others would favour a less extensive immigration, and others still merely want this country to look with compassion upon those who have most suffered in all countries of Europe.
I must state at once that if sometimes certain members of this house are compelled to take a stand that appears somewhat radical on some matters, they do not do so because they hold radical views but quite often in order to oppose a theory implying the promotion of various projects which are not in keeping with -our needs and especially with existing conditions.
As I said, if I am striking to-night a note which is not quite in harmony with those you have heard so far, it is not because I wish to ostracize any nation or race. Far from it. I have enough Christian feelings to sympathize with any people in their hardships, but my Canadian spirit is also sufficiently deep to prevent me from forgetting the plight, -if that word is not too strong-of my own country while commiserating with other unfortunate people.
It is true that in other countries hardships have been suffered, that children were massacred and that a number of men and women have spent months and years in concentration camps, but it is also true that Canada has done her share to alleviate all those hardships. It is true that hundreds of thousands of our soldiers have left Canada, whether in the air force, the army or the navy, in order to join in the fight against ideologies that were too wide-spread, not only in Europe but in many other countries, and which had become deeply-rooted in the minds of some people. It must be remembered, however, that Canada has sent overseas a large number of troops in addition to the billions which we have sent to the continent to help the people of those European countries. Further that we continue, through UNRRA, to help relieving the sufferings of those countries.

v	Supply-Immigration
I understand that some families may wish to adopt young children who have suffered while they were in Europe, but we must remember that in our own country there are children who also have suffered and who are still suffering; some fathers have left their families to go to war and they have not returned, and their children are now orphans. Others went overseas and have returned seriously wounded or crippled for life; thus, their families, although they may not be in dire need, cannot live in the comfort which they had the right to expect.
We must not forget that we are also faced with the problem of our returned men. I was a member of the committee on veterans' affairs, and I have seen members of all the groups in this house take part in all the discussions and study, in a practical and intelligent manner, the problem of the Canadian veterans. And until this problem has been settled, and as long as our law makers refer to repatriation, relief for our veterans, land settlement, there can be no thought of adopting an immigration policy which would but add to our difficult and urgent problems and would complicate conditions in our country.
Hence,. Mr. Chairman, even if I may appear somewhat radical-I have already been referred to as such, but this does not worry me-it is because I believe that any government, or any country whatsoever, must be possessed of a nationalist feeling, even if this word may shock some pf the hon. members present, and I mean that we must think of our own country first.
I do not think that anyone could say that Canada has been guilty of selfishness during the war. I do not think we should open our doors wide to immigration for we already have enough important, urgent and difficult problems to solve.
An hon. member has suggested a committee on immigration. I would like to be a member of it so as to make a thorough, intelligent and appropriate study of the matter.
Those who are here to-night and who have studied world history, know that it is impossible to prevent, in any part of the world, the migration of populations from one country to another. This fact is generally recognized. However, no member of a legislature, whoever he may be, whatever group he may belong to, whatever school of thought he may follow, may abstain from requesting the government he supports or opposes, to be very careful in the selection of immigrants. The immigration officers can never be too strict, for it is only after an immigrant has lived in his adopted country, that it is possible to judge him on his merits.

It may well be claimed, it is true, that the young refugees we may bring into our homes by thousands or hundreds of thousands, will not immediately become public charges. No immigrant, moving from one country to another is exempt, on his- entry into his adopted country, from the supervision pres-scribed by the law of the land and from a special attention on the part of the authorities; by this fact, he plays a part in the shaping of social measures which become ever more numerous and more important.
This is the reason why I rise to my feet to-night. It is not that I wish to sound a false note in this debate, not that I wish the people of Canada to believe that I am irremediably opposed to any immigration policy, but rather that I wish to point out, before we throw our doors wide open to immigration, that we should give some thought to our own interests and to the settlement of our domestic problems, for we must prevent the recurrence of extensive unemployment, which might indeed well prevail after the war.
I therefore hold the view that we should first think of our young children, of our incapacitated soldiers and veterans. Once their case is settled, there will be nothing to prevent us from surveying the situation and implementing a policy not of the open-door but of restricted immigration, insisting on the most careful selection of the immigrants which are to be allowed to enter our beautiful Canada.
(Text)


Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North):: How
many refuges have been admitted to Canada since January 1, 1940?


James Allison Glen: I cannot furnish the exact
figures as refugees are not classified as such in immigration statistical compilations.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I am sorry, too, that I cannot get the information. I think that if we did get it I would find myself in disagreement with the hon. member for Spadina who congratulated the government on its large-heartedness and benevolence in bringing refugees to this country. I suspect that our record in that regard has been shameful. We did an extraordinarily poor job and not one which redounds to the credit of Canada. I have made my views on the immigration department known in the past and I will not reiterate them here. I have said that on the admission of the department itself immigration into this country 'was on the basis of race. I said then, and I repeat now, that that is a fascist conception, and at Nuernberg to-day we are trying men for their lives for practising those very things

Supply-Transport
which we have practised in the past. I should like to have some assurance from the minister that this vicious system will stop and that whatever immigration there is into Canada will not be on the basis of the phobias of people but on the merits of those who desire to come into the country. I should like very much to get an assurance from the minister in that respect.


James Allison Glen: The hon. member asks me to declare what may be the policy of the government with regard to immigration. There can be no announcement at this time of any long-range immigration policy. As has been stated by several hon. members, the first duty of the government is the repatriation of our service personnel with their dependents as well as their reestablishment. Whatever policy is evolved, I can assure the hon. member that the same will be subject to discussion in this house and the hon. [DOT] member will have an opportunity then of expressing his point of view with regard to the same.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I am
glad to have the minister's assurance that any rules and regulations which may be drawn up later will be discussed in the house. I should like him to understand that I do not hold liim responsible or culpable for what has happened in the past. I simply wish to impress upon him that, on the admission of the department, entry into Canada has been on the basis of race, wrhich I consider scandalous. I am not asking for a declaration of government policy when I ask a minister of the crown to say that such a wretched situation will not prevail in the future. This is a principle of democracy which must be preserved.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indian Affairs Branch
178. Fur conservation and development ol native crafts, and to authorize, subject to the approval of the governor in council, the appointment of such extra temporary officers, clerks and employees as may be necessary for the purpose of this item, $150,000.
Mr. McLURE:: What is the extent of fur
conservation?


James Allison Glen: I have placed on Hansard a
factual statement with regard to fur conservation throughout the country.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
James Allison Glen: There are supplementary estimates which have been distributed, and there are no new principles involved in them. They are simply amplifications of votes already discussed in the house. The votes were calculated during war time and since then have been amplified. With the consent of the committee we will go ahead with them.
Mines and Geology Branch
1/86. Bureau of geology and topography administration and miscellaneous services- further amount required, $2,400.


John Bracken: I wonder if it is fair to ask us to deal with supplemeritary estimates now when they have just been tabled. Is there not ample opportunity to deal with other estimates, so that we may have a chance to look at these?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We are dealing now only with those of the Minister of Mines and Resources. He is leaving to-morrow for
the west.


John Bracken: I withdraw the objection.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indian Affairs Branch
508. Grants to agricultural exhibitions and Indian fairs, in the amount detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $400.
. Mr. BRACKEN: Can the minister explain this?
James Allison Glen: There is an annual vote for a number of agricultural exhibitions, and this is one fair which was not included in these votes. This is for prize money given at that fair for Indian children.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
31/9. Departmental administration, $434,101.
Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport):: There are several questions
which were asked some days ago when my estimates were up. The hon. member for Lake Centre asked one or two, and there were others asked by some other hon. gentlemen. With the permission of the committee I will put the replies on Hansard. The hon. member for Lake Centre asked: How many permanent and temporary employees in the Department of Transport receive war duties supplements? The answer is, 708, including air services division. Another question was: Howt many employees were seconded by other departments to the Department of Transport? The answer is, four. Another question was: How many reclassifications have been made and what is the increase resulting therefrom? There was a total number of reclassifications of 1.327. The total cost per annum was $227,700, and the average annual increase to each employee was $171.
Supply-Transport

The hon. member then asked: What was the basis upon which decisions were made as to who shall be entitled to war duties supplements and reclassifications. War duties supplements in my department are paid to those employees who have assumed substantially increased duties and responsibilities directly related to the war effort and to those who assumed the full duties of higher classified employees on military leave.
To arrive at the amount of the supplement, the department reassesses the position in the light of the additional duties, and the amount of the supplement recommended is the difference between the employee's existing salary and the minimum salary rate of the class to which reclassification would normally be made. The recommendation with ministerial concurrence is then submitted to treasury board.
In the Department of Transport, including air services, a total of 708 employees were granted war duties supplements. Forty-nine recommendations were not approved.
Reclassifications in the Department of Transport fall into the following two categories:
1.	Employees in classes of grade 1 or lower -office boys, clerks, typists, et cetera-when their names were reached on the civil service commission eligible lists as a result of competitive examinations, were recommended for reclassification to the next higher grade if their duties warranted same.
2.	Employees in divisions of the department designated as war units by treasury board. Units so designated are merchant seamen manning pool, controller of transport, and war-time construction division of air services branch. These new divisions were subject to constant and rapid expansion and, as from time to time employees assumed duties greatly in excess of their original classification, they were recommended for higher classification.
The hon. member for Peterborough West-asked a question about weeds in the Trent canal. The reply is that the department removes weeds in the main- channel, but not opposite'approaches to private docks.


John Bracken: May I just say one word with respect to the estimates of the Department of Transport. I do not think we shall have to ask for much in the way of information, but in view of the absence of some of our members I would suggest that the first item be allowed to stand.


Mr. GREEN:: There is one matter that I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. It has to do with the port of Vancouver. As the minister knows, the port

is operated by the national harbours board. There seems to be some question in the city about the operation of the port. Of course it is on the Pacific and therefore presents problems quite different from those of the Atlantic ports. The suggestion is made that the interest on the bonds is too high. The minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it is five per cent.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right,


Howard Charles Green: Another suggestion is that arrangements could be made to have the bonds refunded locally at a much lower rate, so that the port would not be paying such a high rate of interest. It is also suggested that the capitalization is too high, and that the cargo rates which are levied, I believe, on all tonnage passing through the harbour are a drawback, at least at their present amount.
When these ports were taken over by the national harbours board some of us felt that there was a danger of getting too centralized control; that the ports would get away from the initiative and the great interest that would follow from some form of local supervision. I believe that we have now come to the time when the weaknesses in this centralized policy are beginning to appaar. I would remind the minister that in 1931-32 a survey was made of the ports of Canada by Sir Alexander Gibb. With regard to having some local share in the operation of the port Sir Alexander Gibb had this to say, which is found at page 31 of his report:
It is essential to avoid emasculating the local administration, since no centralized control can replace an efficient and active local administration, or the special knowledge and initiative of the local business community, both of which are vital to a port's prosperity. For this latter reason I strongly advocate a local advisory council.
So far as I am aware that recommendation was never carried out in any of the ports. I continue:
There are very many aspects of port working which such a council can properly care for, such as the representation of the interests of private wharf owners, of local merchants and distributors, of local consignees and exporters, of the labour view and of the attitude of boards of trade, chambers of commerce, corn exchanges and other such trade organizations in addition to shipping.
It serves very usefully to identify the community with the port; and to secure the support and interest of local members of parliament, the city council, or provincial government in schemes, and so anticipate and meet criticisms from any such quarters, or action that might be prejudicial to the port.
It is invaluable in exploring the possibilities of local markets, in carrying out advertisement and propaganda and in cooperation with interests likely to promote industrial develop-

Supply-Transport
ments. Finally, a local council provides a useful check on the tendency of more or less permanent officials to become stereotyped or arbitrary.
The port manager would be ex-officio chairman of the council, which would meet regularly and be consulted on all such matters as proposed developments, alterations in rates, important changes in operation. The members of the council should have the right of initiating discussions on matters of policy affecting the port, on any complaints raised by users of the port, and on questions of rates, charges, et cetera; but not on any purely executive matters, and they would have no executive duties or powers.
The advisory council's proceedings and recommendations would be submitted to the central authority, and they should have the right of direct access to the central authority, but not to any other department of government.
There was no point in raising any of these questions while the war was on, but we are now facing a period1 of expansion, a period when there must be more interest taken in our ports. The fact that Vancouver is a port is the greatest asset of that city. It is the main Canadian port on the Pacific. There will be an immense trade across to the orient and to Australia and New Zealand if proper policies are followed1. I suggest -that within the next few months consideration should be given to the question of whether or not the port of Vancouver, and perhaps the other ports in Canada, are being handled in the most efficient and modern way.
The national harbours board have done good work; they have a very difficult job. But I suggest that the time has come to look over the whole situation and to stream-line the operation of our great ports. Would it be possible to have an investigation made with regard to the port of Vancouver? I suggest that the minister should go out there at the first opportunity. He has not been west since his appointment. Perhaps he could do so between the end of this session and the opening of the next.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. gentleman has raised four questions. I shall deal with them briefly. The first had ito do with the rate of interest- on the debenture debt. I am not prepared to disagree with him on the rate. I may tell him that the national harbours board is considering the revision of it. No decision has been arrived at, but as soon as it has been reached, it will be announced.
With reference to capitalization, that is another problem which is continually receiving the attention of the board. I am not in a position to make any announcement on that.
With reference to cargo rates, they are being studied at the moment, and they may or may not be revised in accordance with whether there is a reduction in the interest rate of the
debenture debt. Sometimes it is the policy of the board and of the government to refund a series of debentures which come due at a certain date by borrowing the money on certificates of indebtedness and reducing the rate. Whether or not that will be done I am not in a position to say.
With reference to more local share in the operation of the port, 1 should say to the hon. gentleman that in large part that is the work of the port manager. Generally speaking, the port manager is a man who is taken from the community. He knows the circumstances; he is in contact with boards of trade, chambers of commerce and city councils. He has a local knowledge of the situation, and the national harbours board works with him. I am not prepared to say that what is suggested in the Gibb report is not a better conclusion, but at the moment that is the policy of the board. As far as a visit to Vancouver is concerned, I shall be happy to make one at the first possible opportunity.
Mr. GREEN; The minister perhaps has not recently studied the recommendations made by Sir Alexander Gibb-


Lionel Chevrier: I have read the report.


Howard Charles Green: -with regard to local advisory councils. We have a very good port manager in Vancouver; I am not for a moment complaining about his work; but Sir Alexander suggested that councils should be set up which would take a direct responsibility in the administration of the ports. It is not a matter of the port manager meeting people; he does that now, and is very good at it. It is a matter of giving some responsibility to the various groups who are interested in the operations of the port. I would suggest that between now and the opening of next session the minister give consideration to making provision for the setting up of some sort of local advisory council. I think it would result in more efficient and particularly more up-to-date and keener administration of the port. Local issues are coming up all the time and, particularly with a port as far removed from Ottawa as Vancouver, the -men here cannot be expected to keep in touch with such developments. I suggest that there should be some local men who would have a direct responsibility for seeing that our port is used to the best advantage.
Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax); I had not thought we would come to the national harbours board until later, but inasmuch as the hon. member for Vancouver South has brought up the question of our national ports I .should like to say a few words. In the first place, I
Supply-Transport

would invite the minister to home to Halifax and see a great port. He has been there before, I know, but not since becoming Minister of Transport, I was in Vancouver two or three weeks ago, and I told the hon. member for Vancouver South that I was very much impressed with the facilities I found out there and also with the development at Esquimalt. Kecently in Halifax we had a visit from the chairman and another member of the national harbours board. The chairman had been there a few months previously, and at that time he told us that the work of the port of Halifax in war time had been outstanding and beyond the most optimistic hopes of the members of his board. He informed us that no less than 56,780 ships had entered and cleared the port during the war, which represented an average of twenty-six a day.
No doubt the members of the board have had their thoughts and1 energies directed to war activities, and for that reason during the war years very little was done in the way of modernizing or developing the port facilities at Halifax. This whole question was recently brought to the attention of the Canadian people when the owners of the Queen Elizabeth objected' to Halifax and, instead, sent the ship to New York. Their objection was that an element of danger existed in wintertime if a southeasterly gale developed while the ship was lying at her dock in the harbour. Captain Bissett, the master of the ship, is a highly qualified master mariner, familiar for many years with conditions in the port of Halifax. It is true that the Canadian government made strenuous efforts to have the Queen Elizabeth go to Halifax, but the owners decided to accept the views of her master. Of course she is an exceptional ship; exceptional in size and draft and also in the very large area necessarily exposed to the wind. The owners decided to follow the advice of their experts. But experts give opinions, while facts are facts. Sometimes experts are wrong, and it would be very difficult to convince the people of Halifax that the experts were right in this case. They would1 be inclined to agree with the officials of the Department of Transport, who expressed the opinion that Halifax was quite a safe port for the ship to enter and dock. However, the British ministry of transport decided to accept the decision of the owners, and this decision has, I think, served a useful purpose in bringing to the attention of the people of Canada the necessity of modernizing the facilities of [DOT]the port of Halifax, or perhaps I should say the necessity of creating the most modern facilities at that port, for I dloubt if to-day it is sufficient to modernize facilities which were developed there at a time when no one 
contemplated ships the size of the Queen Elizabeth. It is not a case of constructing a new breakwater or extending an existing breakwater. I do not attempt to say what should be done, but Halifax must be a port where the largest British ship can lie in safety, and where no marine expert will be able to question the adequacy of the facilities.
The situation to-day is that, apart altogether from any developments made necessary by the action of the owners of the Queen Elizabeth, many other facilities have to be provided in order that Halifax will be able to compete on even terms with the great Atlantic ports of the United States. A few moments ago the hon. member for Vancouver South mentioned the Gibb report. It is true that this report contained a recommendation that advisory committees be set up at the national ports, and that this recommendation was never implemented by the government. Twenty years ago we had a famous report made on maritime rights, the Duncan report. The commission headed by Sir Andrew Duncan recognized that the development of a port was as much a matter of mechanical and technical equipment as was the development of any. extensive manufacturing or industrial business; and in their report they recommended that port facilities at Halifax and Saint John should be developed on such a scale as to create channels through which trade could expand both winter and summer. They recognized that such developments were necessary if our maritime ports were to be able to compete on anything like equal terms with the ports of the United States.
I must say that central control of our national ports has not been wholly a success. One result of central management is that a national port such as Halifax is not able to go out after business in competition with another national port. That being so, I submit that it is the responsibility of the' board and the government to see that business is directed to our national ports in something like fair proportions.
There is another consideration that should be kept in mind. In the house we have supported and approved proposals that our government extend credit to allied nations to enable them to purchase food and commodities in this country. We cannot control the movement of foreign ships, but I submit that we can at least insist that all goods shipped out of Canada for the relief of allied nations, or goods purchased in this country on the credit of Canada should go to our Atlantic national ports.
I do not wish to take up further time this evening, because the committee is anxious

Supply-Transport
to finish the estimates. However I suggest that in respect of our national ports there are two considerations which should be kept in mind by the national harbours board and the government. One is that all Canadian products which are bound for Europe should be shipped in the wintertime, through our own Canadian ports, if -they can be taken care of by those ports. The second is that full use should be made of the facilities of our maritime national ports in the summertime as well as in the winter. The government has the means as well as the obligation to see that these suggestions are carried out and this transitional period is the time to resolve that it will be done and to plan accordingly.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With the permission of the committee, and if there is no objection, with Mr. Speaker in the chair, I intend to ask consent of the house to do as we did1 last night; that is, to sit for an hour or so after eleven o'clock.


John Ritchie MacNicol: From eleven o'clpck to twelve o'clock.


Major James William Coldwell: Until twelve o'clock.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Whatever the house feels like doing.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the 'house I move:
That the house be not adjourned at eleven o'clock this day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. TOWrNLEY-SMITH: Reference has already been made by the hon. member for the Battlefords and other hon. members from the northwestern part of the dominion to the fact that there are two incomplete railways, one from Cold Lake to St. Walburg, and the other from Heinsburg to Frenchman Butte in Saskatchewan. Since these ineompleted parts or gaps are both in my constituency, I feel I should add my voice bo their request for consideration for the completion of these lines. Apart from the uneconomic condition of having these incomplete railways, and the complete absurdity of railways with gaps in the
centre of them, it becomes evident at this time of the year that when people in that country run into difficulties on account of accidents or ill health, and have to drive anywhere from forty to sixty miles to a railway, that the need for completion is most evident. I would ask the minister to give favourable consideration to the completion of these lines as soon as possible.
Lionel Chevrier: Might I point out that I dealt with, this subject at some length when my estimates were under discussion some days ago, and I do not think it is necessary for me to repeat to-night what I said at that time, namely, that consideration was being given, and that a committee had been set up by the Canadian National Railways to review this situation. A report has not yet been received.
The hon. member for Halifax spoke about the difficulty in connection with the Queen Elizabeth. May I assure him that officers of the Department of Transport, as well as those of the national harbours board were strongly of the view that the Queen Elizabeth could dock safely at Halifax.
He, and the hon. member for Vancouver South, spoke about advisory committees. When the national harbours board was set up it was not thought necessary at that time to give consideration to advisory committees. There may come a time when that will be necessary, but thus far it has not been thought advisable. When that time comes consideration will be given to what has been said.
The hon. member for Halifax referred ,to two further matters, the first of which was that all Canadian products be shipped in winter through the port of Halifax or the port of Saint John. At the present time everything possible is being shipped in the winter months through those two ports. Consideration is being given to the second matter raised by him.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In addition to what has been said, may I point out the importance of connecting up those two railway lines. It is that of having a through line from Prince Albert to Edmonton. At present, if one wishes to go to Edmonton from Prince Albert, he has to go to Saskatoon, board the train there, and go through to Edmonton. It is important that at least one of these lines be connected through at the earliest possible moment, so that a passenger can go straight through from Prince Albert to Edmonton.


Lionel Chevrier: I agree.


Angus MacInnis: There is a matter I
should like to mention to the committee. I
Supply-Transport

do not know if it comes under this item, but if the minister would hear it now I shall not take up his time on another occasion. I have before me copies of letters written to the minister by representatives of the British Colmbia seamen's union in regard to a large number of arrests of sailors on Park steamship boats on their arrival in Vancouver. I notice in one reply under date of November 6 the minister states that he has ordered an investigation to be made. Has that investigation been made and, if so, what is the result? Many of the sentences imposed have been severe, and the seamen's organization point to the fact that most of the arrests have been on ships with British masters, that very few have occurred on ships with Canadian masters. If the minister has any knowledge of that factor I should like to hear what he has to say. Before I sit down I wish to say that I cooperate with the hon. member for Vancouver South in his extension of an invitation to the minister to visit Vancouver.


Lionel Chevrier: I may be able to give the hon. member a reply in a few minutes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There seems to be a general impression abroad, which may or may not be right, that since railway construction has ceased, the duties of the board of transport commissioners have been lessening rather than increasing. I confess that I am surprised at the size of the staff and at the increase, although it is slight in this case. I should like to have a brief answer as to whether the duties of this board are increasing or whether we have a situation where an organization has been built up when it had many duties to discharge and then just sticks at that level.


Lionel Chevrier: If the duties of the board of transport commissioners have lessened in any way it would be because of orders passed under the War Measures Act. Order 92 of the wartime prices and trade board has to do with rates and the like, and to some extent it has curtailed the activities of the board. On the other hand, the board's activities have increased in other ways. During the war years the board has dealt with all sorts of applications and complaints with reference to rates, but always of necessity subject to wartime orders and regulations. It has been working in close harmony and cooperation with the transport controller because of the ancillary powers which the transport controller had during the war years. It has had duties in connection with the regulation and supervision of the carriage of dangerous munitions and explosives, and it has had jurisdiction over

railways, canals, shipping, telegraphs and telephones just as it normally had. Ninety per cent of the applications and complaints are disposed of without hearings; the other ten per cent are dealt with by'hearings held in various parts of the country. While its activities may have been curtailed by the war orders, I think the duties of the board have been as important and as necessary in war time as they were in peace time.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I notice there is a director of traffic, two assistant directors of traffic and a director of operations. Would it be correct to infer that when the war-time controls come off their duties will lessen?


Lionel Chevrier: I would think their
duties will increase rather than lessen.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is this the board to which would be presented the claims of the importers and mines in the Northwest Territories?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Since this matter was brought up in the house, I, and perhaps the minister and other hon. members, have been swamped with communications from gold mines and importers in the Mackenzie river valley. They are looking to the board for relief from the outrageous freight rates now being inflicted on the people trying to build up that country. Everybody there writes in complaining bitterly of what they have been up against. I would recommend to the minister that he instruct the transport commissioners to investigate this matter speedily. According to the Yellowknife Blade they are organizing up there and threatening more or less to set up their own government, which will see to it that they get fair play which they feel they are not getting now. As the minister himself stated a while ago, there is a freight rate of $30 a ton on oil. That is an outrageous rate, and even $20 a ton would be too much. Do not delay with this matter. There is no use in raising these people to a pitch where they cannot be calmed down easily. Some effort should be made to see that they are relieved of this condition so that this country can get along.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine Service-
356. Marine service administration, $15,542.
John Ritchie MacNicol: There does not appear to be one item here to improve transportation facilities into the north country. I am in agreement with all these items, but I contend that the shipping facilities in the north should be improved.

Supply-Immigration


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to be too sure of this, but I think there is an item in the supplementary estimates, or, in fact, two items, dealing with improvements, replacements and repairs in the Northwest Territories.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What are the numbers?


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed now that what I said a moment ago has to do with the regular estimates also. In both the main estimates and the supplementary estimates are items having to do with the expenditure of money in the Northwest Territories.


John Ritchie MacNicol: On the Mackenzie river and the Athabaska river and the Slave river?


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed so, yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Where? I am looking and I cannot find them anywhere. I might say I have been importuned by many up there to speak for them, seeing that they have no representative here.


Lionel Chevrier: In vote 360, aids to navigation.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes. Now, where is there anything there pertaining to the Northwest Territories?


Lionel Chevrier: There is a substantial amount having to do with construction, maintenance and supervision of aids to navigation, including salaries and allowance to lighthouse keepers. That sum of money is broken down under administration, improvements, replacements and repairs, operation and maintenance. Under replacements and repairs there is the sum of 815,000 to be spent in the Northwest Territories and $4,000 to be spent in the Prince Rupert area; and under operation and maintenance, two other amounts, one for Prince Rupert, of $63,900, and the other in the Northwest Territories, of $7,388.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I must inform the minister, first, that Prince Rupert is on the Pacific ocean and perhaps is not less than 700, perhaps 800 miles west.


Lionel Chevrier: I mentioned also the Northwest Territories.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And secondly-I say this kindly; I am not finding any fault with the minister-the Northwest Territories start at parallel 60. One-half of the Slave river is south of parallel 60, South of Fort Smith, and the Athabaska river is wholly south of the Northwest Territories. I should like to know whereabouts in the Northwest Territories the minister has reference to. The item must refer to the Slave river north of parallel 60 and the Mackenzie river from northwest of 47696-223
Great Slave lake. Now, just where? I am sorry to be persistent, but I am swamped with letters from up there asking me please to try to do something for them. I want to help the minister; I do not want the people of that section of the country to come down on his head.


Lionel Chevrier: I cannot give the hon. gentleman the information now. I will try to get it in a moment or two.


Mr. BONNIER (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, there is needed in my constituency an improvement which I have requested for a long time. When I was elected in 1938 the promise was made that a bridge spanning the Lachine canal would be replaced by a tunnel. The plans of that tunnel were even ready. The estimates had been prepared and they were voted for two years in succession, in 1938 and 1939. Then war came and the work was stopped. Now that the war is over, I hope that the government will bring relief to that population of over 100,000 who are trapped, as it were, and find it quite difficult on many occasions to cross the canal.
That bridge is the most difficult to cross of all those that span the Lachine canal, on account of the near-by locks.
When still at a distance of 300 or 400 feet boats signal for the opening of the bridge. The gates are then closed and traffic is quite often stopped for fifteen or twenty minutes. On one occasion, we even had to wait three or four days before being able to cross the bridge. It had been opened, but could not be closed because a boat had stopped alongside. Ice flows down in the canal from Lachine when the locks are opened. There is in the centre a pier that blocks the bridge, and the boat had stopped there. On that occasion we could not cross the bridge for three or four days.
It was because of those conditions that the government decided in 1938 to undertake that work. Mention has been made of another bridge, the Atwater bridge, where the traffic is, I admit, heavier than over our own bridge, but that bridge does not remain open as long as ours. There is no lock in the vicinity of the bridge; boats proceed at a good speed at that place and the traffic is not so congested as at Cote St. Paul.
I hope the minister will take all those facts into consideration.
We have even prepared a table showing the traffic on the bridge of Cote St. Paul. We have noted the number of vehicles, trucks, motor cars, pedestrians, bicycles which use that bridge. That was in 1938 and to-day the traffic is twice as heavy. That table shows the traffic from nine o'clock in the morning to

Supply-Transport

four o'clock in the afternoon. It does not take into account the time when the traffic is quite heavy, as in the morning at eight o'clock and even at seven, and in the afternoon after four o'clock, when it is still heavier.
Here is that table:
Traffic survey-C6te St. Paul Bridge
May,	1938 Going North	Going South	TotalAutomobiles 	1,299	1,266	2,565Trucks 	
Horse-drawn	674	671	1,345vehicles 	62	50	112Street cars 	113	118	231Motorcycles 	16	15	31Bicycles	224	227	451Pedestrians 	593	609	1,002Automobiles 	1,624	1,514	3,238Trucks 	
Horse-drawn	855	809	1,664vehicles 	46	30	76Street cars 	128	127	255Motorcycles 	30	18	48Bicycles	302	327	629Pedestrians 	812	831	1,643
A number of motor-busses also travel over this bridge.
The construction of this tunnel would bring a great deal of relief to one-third of the population of Verdun who would use it. There are also a large number of vehicles coming from the south shore via Mercier bridge and St. Patrick street, which cross over this bridge, and which greatly increase traffic. The construction of this tunnel would greatly improve conditions and would put an end to the congestion which takes place at this spot.
I hope that some means will be found to carry out this work. Plans had been prepared and tenders were to be called for when war broke out. We were told: "It is impossible to undertake this work now on account of the war." The people have understood but now that the war is over the electors of my constituency are desirous of having this improvement carried out. I hope that the department will find some means of relieving this part of my constituency where this tunnel is so badly needed.
I have here a letter which I forwarded to the minister last month. In order not to delay the debate, in view of the late hour, I am willing to place this letter on Hansard with the consent of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Very well, go ahead.


Joseph-Arsène Bonnier: This letter reads as
follows:
Ottawa, November 5, 1945. The Honourable Lionel Chevrier, P.C., K.U., M.P.,
Minister of Transport,
Ottawa.

My Dear Minister,
Re: Tunnel of C6te St. Paul, Lachine Canal, Que.
Plans for the construction of a tunnel under Lachine canal, between the locks and the C&te St. Paul bridge, were prepared and completed in 1939. As I stated in my letter of September 12 last, this bridge is the worst located of all those crossing Lachine canal, because of the locks which are only four or five hundred feet from the bridge. When ships are a thousand or fifteen hundred feet from the bridge, they whistle to have the bridge opened. The gates come down, the bridge opens and traffic stops; automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, bicycles and pedestrians are forced to wait on either side of the bridge for fifteen to twenty minutes and sometimes longer. Ships proceed very slowly and the same thing is repeated when they come out of the lock. Sometimes two ships meet near the lock and then traffic is at a standstill for half an hour. Frequently there are over 125 automobiles and other vehicles, as mentioned above, in addition to pedestrians, waiting to cross.
Attached please find the report of a traffic survey held in May, 1938, between eight in the morning and four in the afternoon. From four to six in the evening, it has been impossible to keep up the work, for during that period, there is a general confusion. It must not be forgotten that this survey was made in 1938 when unemployment was still extensive. You are aware that traffic has doubled in the course of the last six years.
On each side of this bridge, there are two permanent railway lines, that of the C.N.R., on the north, and that of the C.P.R., on the south. At this point, the Canadian Pacific has a large yard, starting at Church street, which runs from the entrance to St. Paul bridge in an easterly direction. East of the bridge are the switches over which both passenger and freight trains are made up and switched to the various sidings. Every time a train is transferred from one siding to another, the traffic is stopped on the bridge, a condition which prevails through the whole year.
Moreover, although I cannot be sure of the year, but it was in the fall of either 1935 ot 1936, early in December, the bridge was completely closed to traffic for a period of four days. The ice that had jammed under the bridge prevented the passage of ships, six or seven of them being moored in the vicinity. Tugboats worked for three days, during which the bridge was open to traffic for only a few minutes. After all the ships had gone through, the ice was driven against the locks. We are threatened .vith the same condition each fall when the cold weather sets in and the ice begins to drift; then the bridge often remains open for half hours and sometimes longer, the ships stop facing the bridge and they have to be towed away.
The city of Montreal, as agreed, is still willing to give away the land necessary for the building of the tunnel.
I am convinced fifty per cent of the people of Verdun will be benefited by such a tunnel. Even a tramway 'ine uses the bridge in its circuit from Verdun to the city. Another line goes through to Ville Emard.
At the last elections, Cote St. Paul and Ville Emard had 19,000 voters; if you multiply that number by four, representing the average family, you have a total population of 76,000. There is more: the traffic for Ville LaSalle, at the exit

Supply-Transport
of Mercier bridge, is still routed by C6te St. Paul bridge, which increases congestion to a greater degree and is a further argument for the building of the tunnel which has been under consideration for about thirty years.
I could supply other detail, but I know you have them in your files concerning the proposed tunnel. As projects have been promised for the post-war period, I feel that none would be more essential than the building of the C6te St. Paul tunnel.
I will see my two colleagues of the House of Commons who are interested in the building of the COte St. Paul tunnel and I am sure they will support my request by letters they will send you.
I hope, dear sir, that you will give my request the best possible consideration and that a favourable decision on this matter will be taken before the end of the present session.
Your devoted servant,
J. A. Bonnier,
Member of parliament for Montreal-St. Henry.
N.B. This tunnel was promised in 1938 and part of the money required was voted during the session of that year and re-voted in 1939.



J. A. B.

[Stage Direction]
(Text)
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: Is the minister prepared now to make a statement in regard to the Canso causeway or bridge, and the improvement of the grades and alignment on the railway? I will not discuss the matter at length because it was dealt with fairly fully at a previous sitting. The minister said that he was not prepared to answer at that time but would do so later in the session. If it is convenient to him I should like to have the statement now.


Lionel Chevrier: Before I reply to the
hon. gentleman, there are two or three questions which I wish to answer. The hon member for Vancouver East asked a question about the arrest of sailors on certain Park steamships in Vancouver. He said that most of the ships had British masters. I am informed that the men were charged under the Canada Shipping Act with offences against certain sections of the act having to do with refusal of duty and other serious breaches of discipline. The nationality of the captain had absolutely nothing to do with the charges that were laid. The seamen were members of the Westbank Park, Bridgeland Park and Cromwell Park. So far as the sentences are concerned, they would not be under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport. They are subject, I presume, to the ordinary jurisdiction of the magistrate or the police court that tried them, and I would have nothing to do with that.
With regard to the question asked by the hon. member for Davenport, there are two amounts in the estimates covering expenditures for the Northwest Territories: $22,388 in the 47696-223i
main estimates and $29,700 in the supplement-aries all having to do with aids to navigation in that area. I have the details, but they are lengthy.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Do they pertain to
dredging?


Lionel Chevrier: Transport has absolutely nothing to do with dredging; that comes under Public Works. We provide the funds for aids to navigation, buoys and assistance to navigation, but we do not deepen or dredge the channel. I have no objection to giving the details but. as I say, they are lengthy.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is only a small amount in any event and it pertains to lights or buoys in the river.


Lionel Chevrier: It pertains to lights,
channel buoys, flag markers, bell buoys and shore beacons and it concerns those in Great Bear lake, Mackenzie delta, east channel and Port Brabant, in the Mackenzie river, and in lake Athabaska and Great Slave lake. There is also part of the estimate that has to do with the purchase of a buoy boat at Fort Smith.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I may inform the minister that these items do not amount to one, two or three as far as improvements are concerned. All the things he has mentioned are used every year. Every year they have to have buoys in the river and I have seen them myself.


Lionel Chevrier: There is far more in
the estimates this year than in 1944.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does the minister understand the significance of the items he has mentioned? You could not go down the river without the buoys and markers. I know what they are. But is there anything in the item for the improvement of the channel in the rivers?


Lionel Chevrier: No. As I have told
the hon. gentleman, the improvement of the channel is a matter for the public works department. Transport has nothing to do with it. This department deals with aids to navigation, and this money is spent for betterments in connection with those aids.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then I suppose the only thing is to ask at the next session of parliament to have these two departments put together. It does not sound feasible that the Department of Transport is unable to recommend to the Department of Public Works what has to be done. What does the Department of Transport do? The Department of Public Works will have to wake up; in fact both departments will have to wake up. Let
Supply-Transport

me read to the minister something from the Yellowknife Blade of November 20, written by John Murray McMeekan, a writer who is going to be heard from:
Ottawa Fiddles. We, in the Northwest Territories in the Yellowknife district, . . . and scattered throughout the district of Mackenzie and through all that vast imperial domain of more than a million square miles in extent which lies north of the provinces

That is, north of the 60th parallel, which is the northern boundary of Alberta and Saskatchewan.
-are in a state of suppression comparable to that which aroused the fighting ire of the colonists of North America.
I can tell the minister that there are ten to twelve thousand) people in that country, including vigorous young men who will not stand for the neglect that is going on there. They demand rapid transit. The Minister of Transport should see that they get it. I give him my own kindly and humble advice. I say to him:	As Minister of Transport, look into
this matter and see to it that, whatever the department does, these men get a square deal in the matter of transportation.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member for
Cumberland asked a question with regard to Canso, and I would preface my reply with this statement. In the estimate which is given here, any amount of money given is only an estimate, because the plans and the surveys are not yet complete and will not be complete for some time. Following discussion in the reconstruction committee of the House of Commons in 1944, the Minister of Reconstruction and the Premier of Nova Scotia arranged for an investigation of the existing situation. Mr. D. W. McLachlan, engineer of design and capital construction of my department, and Mr. L. H. Wheaton, engineer of the Department of Highways of Nova Scotia, were appointed to investigate and report on the same.
This report will not be completed until next year, one difficulty being inability to make a satisfactory arrangement with any contractor to undertake the work of borings in the strait of Canso. It is a difficult and expensive job, the water being 160 feet deep. A contractor has now been secured, but the work cannot be done until next spring.
I would have preferred not to make any pronouncement in the matter until the engineer's reports are in and the economic factors have been considered but, in view of the interest taken, I will make the following general statement as to the present situation based on the facts already developed.

The present Canso ferry is far from adequate, and the grades on the railway lines between Truro and Mulgrave are severe, while those on the line between Tupper and Sydney are fair.
Four solutions of the problem have presented themselves and we are developing accurate plans and estimates of these proposals:
1.	Bridge. The building of a low grade railway line from Sunnybrae to connect with the Antigonish-Mulgrave line, relocation of part of the Mulgrave line around the north coast from Lynwood and a bridge across the straits of Canso. Preliminary estimated cost, $26,000,000.
2.	Causeway and lock. Build a low grade railway line from Sunnybrae to connect with the Antigonish-Mulgrave line, relocate part of the Mulgrave line around the north coast from Lynwood to Archie Cove on the gut of Canso and build a causeway across the strait of Canso. Preliminary estimated cost, $19,000,000.
3.	New ferry. Build the same low grade railway line from Sunnybrae and relocate the Mulgrave line around the north coast to cape Porcupine on the gut of Canso, a tunnel between that point and Keaton point and establish new ferry terminals in that locality and build a large modern car ferry; also a corresponding new terminal on the opposite side of the strait. Preliminary estimated cost $10,000,000.
4.	Complete the Sunnybrae-Guysboro line and extend it around the south coast to Steep Creek on the strait of Canso, with a new terminal at Steep Creek and one on the opposite north shore. Preliminary estimated cost, $12,000,000.
The Department of Transport and the government are prepared to do anything within reason in the area. It realizes that something must be done both with reference to the railway and to the crossing. I have mentioned four possibilities. Before the department has complete data on these proposals, it is impossible to say which one will be adopted. All I can say at the moment is that whichever one of these is found by the engineers of the department to be economically sound will be recommended to the government.


Percy Chapman Black: What is meant by "preliminary estimates"? How are they made up? Are they casual guesses, or are they based upon some calculation as to the quantities, and so on?


Lionel Chevrier: They are not guesses; rather they are based on quantities estimated by the engineers. These preliminary estimates were made by the engineer of design and

Supply-Transport
capital construction of the department in conjunction with the engineer of the department of highways of Nova Scotia.


Percy Chapman Black: The minister said that the engineers are still making surveys for estimates and that they will not be completed until next year. Will they be available early in 1946? I understand that they have been working on it for some considerable time.


Lionel Chevrier: It is impossible to get a complete report until the borings in the strait have been made; and I am informed that it cannot be done at this time of the year.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What are they boring for?


Lionel Chevrier: To find out what the bottom is like, whether clay, sand or rock.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Do they propose to put piers on either side of the strait?


Lionel Chevrier: That would depend, of course, on the project that would be adopted; if it were a bridge or a causeway, yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: A bridge would require piers?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does the minister know the depth of the water?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, 200 feet deep, and the tide-


John Ritchie MacNicol: Near the shore?


Lionel Chevrier: No; it is 200 feet deep in about the middle of the gut.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That would have nothing to do with the bridge. What is it near the shore?


Lionel Chevrier: It is 100 feet near the shore, and in the gut the tide runs at five knots an hour.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In other words, if a pier were erected on each side of the strait, as is done for the Quebec bridge, it would be 100 feet deep. That is not out of the way, as long as the pier rests on a solid base. Is it a rock foundation?


Lionel Chevrier: That is what we do not know as yet. So far as the Quebec bridge is concerned, I am informed by the engineers that it would be impossible to build a structure of the nature of the Quebec bridge in the gut of Canso.


Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: During the war a munitions ship caught fire and was sunk by shell fire in Halifax harbour. The following
year the cargo was removed, but the vessel herself is still lying in navigable waters, practically in mid-channel and is now a menace to navigation, particularly during storms when vessels may drag their anchors. She is a submerged wreck and her position is marked by two wreck buoys. The wreck should be removed because it is lying in good anchorage ground and, if damage to another ship were occasioned, it might prejudicially affect the port. I would ask the minister to have the proper officials of his department look into this matter.


Lionel Chevrier: Is my hon. friend referring to the Trongatel
Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax); Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: That matter is being investigated at the moment.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: A situation
similar to that mentioned by the minister obtained in Tasmania, which is at the lower tip of Australia. Perhaps the tide does not run at five knots an hour there, but there is a strong tide. I cannot say as to the distance of the transverse down there. The minister is considering four points of view. In Tasmania they found a depth of water of 130 feet at the shoreline. The centre of the gap which had to be transversed was a mile and a quarter. The depth ran beyond 200 feet, and it was necessary to transverse this area. The estimate which the minister gave strikes me as being extremely high. In the particular area to which I am referring they gave up the project, but a young Tasmanian engineer conceived the idea of building large concrete pontoons and floating them into position. That obviated the necessity of putting a bridge structure down to that great depth They floated those pontoons into position against the current. The convex side of the pontoon was placed against the tide, and when the tide turned it held them in position. Then, by means of extremely heavy steel cables some eight inches in diameter and a mile and a quarter long, they floated these pontoons into position. Recesses were put in the top and bottom of these pontoons and on either side. By this means they constructed a structure at about one-fifth of the original cost. Even if Lloyds of London would not underwrite the structure in regard to the hazards it might undergo, the state of Tasmania took the responsibility and the structure has been completed. It is in use now, and has met with great success. The area which has to be traversed by navigation as well was overcome by taking the shallowest end in the 100 feet and putting in a lift bridge, which
Supply-Transport

permitted navigation to go back and forth. Perhaps it is my duty to mention this, although no doubt the engineers of the department know of it since it is one of the world's great achievements. I should like this on record for the consideration of the department, in view of the fact that millions are included in these estimates and spent just like so much water. Frankly, this is an extremely expensive chore that has to be undertaken by the department.


Mr. MATTHEWS (Kootenay East):: I am not sure whether the question I wish to ask comes under this particular item, but I have looked rather carefully through the estimates of the Department of Transport as well as those of the Department of Public Works, and I do not see any reference at all to money being expended for the removal of Ripple Rock.


Lionel Chevrier: That comes under Public Works.


James Herbert Matthews: And it can still be dealt with?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Mr. HAZEN:: I had intended to speak this evening on the advantages that would be derived from the construction of a canal across the isthmus of Chignecto connecting Northumberland strait with the bay of Fundy, but in view of the lateness of the hour and the amount of work still before the house I will reserve my remarks for another occasion. However, I should like to ask the minister if any consideration has been given by the government to the construction of this canal, whether any investigations are being made and any reports have been prepared.


Lionel Chevrier: No investigation has been made by my department other than that referred to in the report of the Chignecto :anal commission in July, 1931. The gist of that report can be summarized briefly in this quotation from it:
Having regard to transportation facilities already available in the maritime area as a whole, we cannot see where any interest would suffer were the Chignecto canal project to be permitted to stand in abeyance until it can be further examined in the light of future developments in Canada's economic situation.
Since that time it has not been further examined.


Percy Chapman Black: May I ask the minister what he has been reading from?


Lionel Chevrier: I have been reading from the report of the Chignecto canal commission dated July, 1931, set up by order in council P.C. 1686.


Percy Chapman Black: 
Douglas King Hazen: The minister stated that no investigations were being conducted by his department ait the present time. I would ask him to give the matter further consideration, and to have further investigations made. I believe further study should be given this important proposal.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service-
359. Marine service steamers, including icebreakers-maintenance, operation and repairs, $1,648,500.
Mr. MOORE:: I should like to direct two questions to the minister in connection with this item, since I see it deals with icebreakers. Will it be the intention of the department to maintain an icebreaker in future for use at Port Churchill, with a view to extending the shipping season there? I have a letter from several residents of Churchill in which they stated that the ocean-going tug the Ocean Eagle, which was originally built for use in Churchill harbour, was removed during the war and 'taken to the east coast. I understand that insurance rates are dependent upon the presence of the tug at the port. Will the minister do what he can in the near future to have that tug returned to Churchill? I do not wish to discuss the item further, because I understand that most of the money has already been spent.


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed that there is an icebreaker which goes to Hudson bay every season to open navigation. Then, so far as the tug is concerned, any ship entering the harbour is provided with a tug.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Where does the icebreaker come from?


Lionel Chevrier: It is the N.B. McLean. It comes from Quebec, and the east coast.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Is the ferry system between Borden and Tormentine included in this vote? Does this include the expense of operating an icebreaking steamer between those points?


Lionel Chevrier: No; there is a special vote for that.


Mr. FERGUSON:: Is it the intention of the present government to run the water up-hill from Newmarket to lake Ontario.


Major James William Coldwell: I read1 the other day where one of our ships had been equipped with radar. W'hat is contemplated by the department in this connection? How will radar assist in meeting the problems which arise in connection with navigation, for the avoidance of ice, and so on. This would have
a considerable bearing on a route such as the Hudson bay route, or on navigation in the strait of Belle Isle.


Lionel Chevrier: We are experimenting with radar on departmental ships at the present time. We have that equipment on the Grenville, one of the supply vessels which operate in the St. Lawrence. That is the only departmental ship equipped with radar at the present time. However, we are continuing our experiments, and they have been most satisfactory. I am also informed that when the McLean goes to Hudson bay next year she will be equipped with radar.


Ronald Stewart Moore: I understand that along the Hudson bay route the department is establishing several aids to navigation. Is it the intention to place landJbased radar at some of those points for the direction of ships?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service-
SCO. Construction, maintenance and supervision of aids to navigation, including salaries and allowances to lightkeepers, $2,043,400.
William Scottie Bryce: I received a telegram to-day respecting the light at Downing reef on Lake Winnipeg. What does the minister propose to do about this matter? Is it to be repaired and reestablished? I understand it has been demolished, and the people are anxious about it.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not in a position to give the hon. member a reply on that. However, I shall inquire and give a reply either to-night or to-morrow.


William Scottie Bryce: Then, can the minister give me any information about the work done at Warrens Landing?


Lionel Chevrier: No; I would have to make inquiries about it.


William Scottie Bryce: Will the minister give me his assurance that he will take up these matters?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, and I will give the hon. member a reply.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service-
365. Life saving service, including reward# for saving life, $44,250.
Joseph Henry Harris: Perhaps on this item I might also speak respecting the subject matter in item 369, because there seems to be some relation between the two. Hon. members will recall the tragedy which took place last summer when fire broke out on one of the
Supply-[DOT]Transport

passenger steamers, one of the luxury vessels on lake Huron. I would refer particularly to life saving service, and to the inspection which would be covered by item 360.
In this connection may I put this observation on record? Since the advent of war very little has been done to keep this equipment in first-class condition. Some ten years ago it was my privilege to discuss this matter in the house, and to point out that there were not nearly enough safety appliances, especially on our passenger steamers on the great lakes, right from the Saguenay and the St. Lawrence through to Fort William. I repeat that tonight.
The advent of war in the meantime has not helped the situation. I note that in the coming year we are to spend $248,410 for steamship inspection, and that we are spending something more than $44,000 for life saving services. It will be my hope that with the two votes the department will realize that it has a tremendous responsibility to carry out life saving services and the inspection of craft that are dilapidated and old, and some of which are unseaworthy, and which will be expected to cater to the tremendous traffic we may expect to have in the coming year from those who will be seeking pleasure. Many people will have money to spend, which in days gone by they did not have. They will be crowding these out-moded services operating on the great lakes, from the mouth of the St. Lawrence right through the system.
It would well behoove the minister to advise the officials of his department who are charged with responsibility for these inspection services to see to it that when they accept in the coming year almost a quarter of a million dollars they do a job, even if it becomes necessary to restrict travel on unseaworthy craft, which will be catering to the trade in the next year.
Please, do not let us have more tragedies on our great lakes. Tell your inspectors, and those charged with the responsibility to carry out their duties in this day and generation when so many of our Canadian citizens are anxious to enjoy themselves and, if necessary, to spend large amounts of money in doing so.


Mr. JACKMAN:: Does the department still give medals for life saving? They used to give watches, too.


Lionel Chevrier: We do give awards. Sometimes they are made in cash, and sometimes medals are given.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Have any been given in recent years? Is the practice still current?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, I have a list here.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The practice is still
current.
M. CHEVRIER: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service-[DOT]
S69. Steamship inspection and the carrying out of the provisions of the conventions for the safety of life at sea and load lines, $248,410.
Angus MacInnis: We ratified a convention in the house the other day having to do with the inspection of ships' tackle for loading and unloading. The committee on external affairs made a study of this convention and submitted certain recommendations for an increase in the number of tackle inspectors and an improvement- in their remuneration. Will there be anything in the supplementary estimates for that, because I notice there is provision for only four tackle inspectors at a remuneration of $1,440 a year? We were told in the committee that there were only two in British Columbia, one at Vancouver and one at Port Alberni. There is a sizable port at Prince Rupert, another at New Westminster and another at Victoria. How are ships coming into those ports to be inspected? I should like to have something from the minister to indicate that conditions will be improved now that we have ratified the convention.


Lionel Chevrier: These estimates were
prepared many months ago, and there could not possibly be any provision for additional inspectors of tackle, resulting from the signing of the convention, nor could there be such provision in the supplementary estimates which were prepared some weeks ago before the committee reported. I am informed that under the "temporary assistance" item there are three more inspectors of tackle than there were previously.


Angus MacInnis: Whether we ratified this convention or not, our obligation would still be as great to see that every safety was provided. Now that we have ratified the convention, there should be some improvement, not only here but in other countries which have also ratified the convention. At the moment I will take the word of the minister in regard to the temporaries that are provided for. We received the supplementary estimates only this morning. When the Minister of Finance was questioned about them the other day by the leader of the opposition he said that they were in preparation and that he expected to have them ready this week.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right, but before they reach the hands of the Minister of Fin-

Privilege-Mr. Adamson
ance they must go through the department, and it takes some time to prepare them in the department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service-
S71. River St. Lawrence ship channel-contract dredging in the St. Lawrence river and Montreal harbour, including cost of administration-capital, $989,500.
John Ritchie MacNicol: I notice that the levels in Montreal harbour are higher than they have been for some time. Has the diversion from the Ogoki and Kenogami rivers which pour into lake Superior amounting to about 6,000 cubic feet per second had anything to do with the water level of Montreal harbour?


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed that the level of the whole great lakes system has increased.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I was asking if the diversion of 6,000 cubic feet per second from these rivers had any direct effect on Montreal harbour?


Lionel Chevrier: I could not say.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does the minister know whether Chicago is taking more water through the drainage canal than previously?


Lionel Chevrier: My officers have no
information.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railway service-	.
374.	Hudson Bay railway-construction and improvements-capital, $20,000.
Mr. McCUAIG:: Has any consideration
been given to the completion of the railroad between Mankota and Valmarie on the Canadian Pacific? There is a gap here of about thirty-seven miles. I understand that resolutions and petitions have been sent to the minister in connection with this matter by R.M.'s 18. 45, 46 and 72 and the villages of Climax, Orkney, Masefield and Valmarie. I wrote to the minister in connection with this, but I have not had a reply.


Lionel Chevrier: I have received the
petitions, and I shall be glad to give my hon. friend a reply in due course.
Railway service-
375.	Hudson Bay railway-To provide for the difference between the expenditures for operation and maintenance, and revenue accruing from operations during the year ending March 31, 1946, not exceeding $500,900.


Mr. PROBE:: I notice that the expenditures to provide for the deficits on the operation of the Hudson Bay railway are increased in this
year's estimates by about $192,000. That might be accounted for in one of two ways; either the amount of the revenue is less, or the services have been considerably increased.
I should like to have a statement as to the present status of the service being given during the current year. I notice that the figures on page Z-25 of the public accounts of last year show the operating expenditures for 1943-44 as SL00S.025, and the operating revenues as 8660,000. giving a deficit of $347,872. The present deficit is considerably higher.


Lionel Chevrier: The manager of the railway appeared before the railways and shipping committee and gave evidence for some considerable time. The operating expenses for 1944-45 are $811,169.14; the revenue was $246,229.12, giving a net operating deficit of $564,940.02 as compared with $347,872.90. I have not the details here and I hesitate to go into it more fully. The manager gave these at great length before the committee, and I doubt whether this committee will want me to go over the matter again.


John Oliver Probe: I had not read the report of the committee, but I was interested in knowing why there was an increased deficit.


Major James William Coldwell: Could this item stand until to-morrow? It is twelve o'clock.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think my hon. friend the leader of the C.C.F. made a reservation regarding twelve o'clock when he consented, and to sit after eleven o'clock is possible only by consent of the house. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
PRIVILEGE-Mr. ADAMSON



REFERENCE TO REPORT IN TORONTO &quot;DAILY STAR&quot;

Mr. A. R. ADAMSON (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a question of privilege. Quite by chance I came into possession of a copy of the Toronto Daily Star, which reports this morning's proceedings with the following headlines:
Takes house five minutes to pass $2,000 M.P.
raise.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is symptomatic of the general distortion practised by this newspaper.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, that is a good newspaper.

Exercise Musk-Ox


Agar Rodney Adamson: I hope the Secretary of State was in the house this morning.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Secretary of State is always in the house.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I am delighted. Then he must have been listening to his leader, or perhaps he did not? The question of privilege I wish to raise is that the debate took the entire morning sitting of this house, not the five minutes as distorted by this newspaper, which seems to be jointly owned by Hearst and Stalin.


John Oliver Probe: The type slipped, I think.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie the house adjourned at 12.05 a.m.
Saturday, December 15, 1945.