1939-03-27

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the name of Mr. Howard be substituted for that of Mr. Deachman on the select special committee of the house appointed to inquire into the operation of the Civil Service Act, and all matters pertaining thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. H. GOLDING (Huron-Perth) presented the third report of the standing [DOT] committee on standing orders, and moved that ;he report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: I wish to table copy of a

recommendation by the Minister of Justice and two orders in council concerning five acts of the legislature of Alberta, copies of which were received by the Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) on the 23rd day of April, 1938.



CARRIAGE BY AIR


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 61, to give effect to a convention for the unification of certain rules relating to international carriage by air, to make provision for applying the rules contained in the said convention, subject to exceptions, adaptations and modifications, to carriage by air which is not international carriage within the meaning of the convention, and for purposes connected therewith.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. HOWE:: The purpose of this bill is to give effect to the convention adopted at Warsaw, in 1929 to unify the rules for international carriage of goods and passengers by air. This convention has been adopted by Great Britain, Ireland, the United States, Mexico and practically all European countries. In view of the increase in international carriage by air it is felt that Canada should ratify this convention. The bill provides that in addition to governing international carriage by air the provisions of the Warsaw convention can by order in council be applied to carriage by air within Canada. The bill also provides for limitation of liability for loss of passengers and baggage.


Mr. CAHAN:: Have copies of the Warsaw convention ever been distributed to members of the house?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know as to that, but if not, I shall be glad to see that it is done.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADA GRAIN ACT

[Stage Direction]
INSURANCE CLAIMS-WEIGH-OVER IN TERMINAL ELEVATORS - GRAIN STANDARDS COMMITTEES -[DOT] GENERAL REVISION
Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 62, to amend the Canada Grain Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. EULER:: This bill proposes a pretty general revision of the grain act. It involves

Questions
some seventy amendments. Most of these merely provide for changes in the method of procedure or something of the kind. I could give a fuller explanation if it were desired at this time, but in view of the fact that it is proposed that the bill be referred to a committee, probably the standing committee on agriculture, I suggest it can be more fully discussed there, especially since members of the board of grain commissioners will be present, and possibly others may be heard as well.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 63, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935.
Mr. STEVENS:: Explain.


William Daum Euler: This bill provides for the repeal of that part of the wheat board act which gives power to the board to make an initial payment to the producers of wheat, and substitute therefor a paragraph which gives power to the wheat board to make an initial payment of sixty cents a bushel for No. 1 northern, basis Fort William. The participation feature remains in the act. A proper conception of the implications and merits of the bill can, I think, best be obtained in conjunction with certain other legislation which is to be introduced by my colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner).


Mr. MANION:: Will this bill go before
a committee also?


William Daum Euler: I do not know that that has been decided upon.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. OLOF HANSON (Skeena, for Mr. Cleaver) moved the first reading of Bill No. 55 (from the senate) to change the name of Ancient Foresters' Mutual Life Insurance Company to Toronto Mutual Life Insurance Company.
Mr. LOCKHART:: May we have an
explanation of this?


Mr. SPEAKER:: In the absence of the
hon. member who sponsors it, the bill stands.
Motion stands.



SENATE BILL-FIRST READING

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 56 to incorporate the Associated Canadian Travellers-Mr. McPhee.

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

Mr. CHURCH:: What action is the Department of Labour taking with respect to the present high cost of living in Canada to the working classes of the country with a view of reducing the same or controlling combines, trusts, and combinations in restraint of trade in Canada?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: Present activities under the Combines Investigation Act include prosecution of an alleged tobacco combine and investigations into alleged combines in fruits and vegetables and shipping containers and other products. Inquiries regarding leaf tobacco and other products are pending, and attention is being given to bread and coal. Other inquiries will be made as applications are received.


CANADIAN FEDERATION OF LABOUR
Mr. NEILL:: 1.	In 1937, did the Canadian Federation of Labour invite the Department of Labour to examine its records of membership?
2.	If so, was such an examination made, and by whom?


James Angus MacKinnon: In the spring of 1937, following a conference between the acting deputy minister and other officers of the Department of Labour and the secretary-treasurer of the Canadian Federation of Labour, Mr. D. J. Sutherland of the departmental staff, on invitation of the said secretary-treasurer of the Canadian Federation of Labour, visited the head office of that organization in Ottawa and was shown certain statements of membership claimed by the organization together with certain duplicate bank deposit slips, but no examination of the records of the organization was conducted by Mr. Sutherland to establish the correctness of those statements.

Questions


COMMERCIAL RELATIONS WITH GERMANY
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has the attention of the government been called to the withdrawal from Berlin of the British and United States ambassadors?
2.	Has Canada any commercial agents in Germany? If so, where, and who are they?
3.	In view of question No. 1, will the government call home these commercial agents at once from Germany, so that the world will know Canada's opinion of Germany's actions?
4.	Will the government give consideration to writing into the present United States-Canada treaty a clause that the favoured nations provisos shall not apply to Germany?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The Canadian government trade commissioner, J. C. Macgillivray, Berlin.
3.	The British and United States ambassadors have been called home to London and Washington, respectively, to report on the political situation. In both cases, the embassies are carrying on as usual, in Berlin, under a charge d'affaires. Trade Commissioners are lot appointed to deal with political questions and the possibility of similar action does not arise.
4.	It would not be possible to deal with such a question by an amendment to the United States-Canada trade treaty.


ST. HYACINTHE, QUE., CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
Mr. FONTAINE:: What were the revenues of the customs and excise office at Saint Hyacinthe, province of Quebec, during each of the years from 1928 to 1938, inclusive?


Mr. ILSLEY:: Fiscal year
1927-28			SS95.223 67
1928-29			 306,710 83
1929-30			 365,641 36
1930-31			 206,021 93
1931-32			 299^555 18
1932-33			 279,665 37
1933-34			 351,400 66
1934-35			 432,076 81
1935-36			 429,634 68
1936-37			 597,518 46
1937-38			 679,941 66


CANADIAN NATIONALS IN GERMANY-QUESTION OF RECOGNITION OF GERMAN CONQUESTS
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	How many Canadian nationals of German extraction in December, January and February, last, asked for passports to visit Germany or to go through other European countries to go to Germany?

2.	What is the purpose of their visits abroad?
3.	Will the government enforce the Foreign Enlistment Act if these are going to enlist in Germany or for German aggression?
4.	Will any amendments be made to existing statute law to prevent these migrants ever returning to Canada in the future at any time?
5.	Has Canada recognized or been asked to recognize the illegal conquest by force by Germany of Czecho-Slovakia, Austria, the Rhine, Hungary and other nearby nations contrary to international law and treaties?
6.	Will any correspondence in relation thereto be tabled ?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	In the months of December, January and February, last, 72 Canadian nationals, apparently of German extraction, were accorded passport facilities for visits abroad, including Germany. Of these 72 Canadians, 41 were men, 17 women and 14 children. Of the 41 men, 7 were under the age of 30.
2.	In all but two cases the purpose of the journey was stated to be "making a visit." One applicant stated that he desired to reside permanently and another that he was travelling on business.
3.	There is no indication that the hypothetical case set forth in the question has arisen. If it had arisen, the Foreign Enlistment Act would not be applicable, in the present situation.
4.	No occasion has arisen for legislative action and no amendments to existing statute law's are in contemplation. If an occasion arose, it could be adequately dealt with under existing legislation.
5.	As regards Austria, there has been de facto recognition of German sovereignty, on the part of Canada as of other countries. No action has been taken as regards Czechoslovakia.
No information has been received with regard to the conquest by Germany of the Rhine or of Hungary.
6.	It is not the present intention to table correspondence in relation to these matters.


PROTESTS AGAINST CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN FOREIGN CONFLICT
Mr. GARIEPY:: 1.	Has the Right Honourable the Prime Minister, or the government, received from nine societies a telegram expressing absolute opposition of the population of the province of Quebec to Canada's participation in a foreign conflict, such societies being: the St. Jean Baptiste Society of Montreal, in the name of the St.

Questions
Jean Baptiste Societies of Quebec and Ontario; La Ligue d'Action Nationale; the Catholic Farmers Union; the French Canadian Young Patriots; the Canadian Confederation of Catholic Workers; the central council of the National Catholic Syndicates of Montreal; the Alliance of Catholic Professions of Montreal; the Catholic Association of French Canadian Youth (A.C.J.C.) ?
2.	If so, what answer has been given to that telegram ?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to lay both the telegram and the answer before the house for consideration?
Mr. MACKENZIE KING; A copy of the telegram referred to, and the reply to the same, are as follows:
Canadian National Telegram
MOA 207	150 NL 65 Extra 1/67
FD Montreal, P.Q. 21
1939 Mar 21 PM 8 11
The Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King Ottawa, Ont.
Delegates of the undermentioned associations called together in urgent meeting in Montreal and justifiably alarmed by the statements of Messrs. Manion, Hepburn and King and by the resolution adopted in the Ontario Legislature, consider any declaration of joint action with London in European affairs as greatly imperiling Canadian unity, as contrary to the interests of Canada and to her status as a free state, and wish to advise the King government that the people of the province of Quebec remain flatly opposed to Canada's participating in any foreign wars.
La Societe Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montreal on its own behalf and on behalf of the Societes Saint-Jean-Baptiste in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario;
La Ligue d'Action nationale;
L'Union catholique des cultivateurs;
Les Jeunesses patriotes du Canada frangais;
Le Bloc Universitaire;
La Confederation des Travailleurs catlioliques du Canada;
Le Conseil central des Syndicate catlioliques de Montreal;
L'Alliance catholique des Professeurs de Montreal; sections masculine et feminine;
L'Association catholique de la Jeunesse eana-dienne-frangaise.
Ottawa, 22nd March, 1939.
The Secretary,
La Soeiet e Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montreal, 1182 St. Lawrence Blvd.,
Montreal, P.Q.
Mr. Secretary,
I wish to acknowledge receipt of the telegram you forwarded to me on behalf of the Societe Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montreal and of several other organizations, concerning Canada's stand with regard to the present international situation.
You may be sure that I shall not fail to acquaint my colleagues in the government with the representations you have submitted.
Very sincerely yours,
W. L. Mackenzie King.
71492-144j


RADIO LICENCE FEES
[Stage Direction]
Mr. HARRIS;
How many radio licence fees were paid in each of the following provinces:	British
Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, during the years 1936 and 1937?
Clarence Decatur Howe: Licences issued during	
Province	fiscal 1936-1937	year 1937-1938British Columbia.. ..	. .. 91,978	100,251Alberta	. .. 72,458	75.843Saskatchewan	. .. 68,193	62,636Manitoba	. .. 69,861	73,099Ontario	. .. 424.126	445,867Quebec	. .. 240.105	268,650New Brunswick	. .. 27,253	29,956Nova Scotia	.. .. 40,938	43.321Prince Edivard Island.	. .. 3,282	4,198


MAYNE ISLAND, B.C., WHARFINGER
Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: 1.	Who appointed Geoffrey L. Wheatley as Mayne island wharfinger?
2.	When was he so appointed?
3.	When was his appointment made known to the department?
4.	Did the minister confirm his appointment retroactive to March 28, 1938?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	The Minister of Transport.
2.	March 16, 1938.
3.	March 16, 1938.
4.	His appointment was not made retroactive. He took over the duties March 28, 1938. He resigned April 19, 1938.


CAN ADLAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-TALKS BY MINISTER OF MINES AND RESOURCES
Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: 1.	Did the Minister of Mines and Resources deliver a series of radio talks over the national network of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
2.	If so, how many talks did he give?
3.	Were the broadcasts paid for by the government ?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The following is a list of the talks in question-
1.	The Development of Canada's Mineral Resources.
Questions

2.	The Lure of Gold Pushes Back Canada's Northern Frontiers.
3.	Northern Mining Forges New Link between Eastern and Western Canada.
4.	The Nature and Distribution of Canada's Gold.
5.	The Role of the Mining Industry in Creating Employment.
6.	The New Traffic that Mines are Creating for Canadian Railways.
7.	The Industrial Metals in Canada's Mining Industry.
8.	Metal Mining in British Columbia and Yukon.
9.	Canada's Mineral Industry in its Relation to National Welfare.
10.	The International Importance of the Canadian Mineral Industry.
11.	The Non-Metallic Minerals in Canada's Mining Industry.
12.	An Epitome of the Mining Industry in Canada.
1936-	37
1.	Some of the Natural Resources of Canada.
2.	Canada's Forest Wealth.
3.	The National Parks of Canada.
4.	The Indians of Canada.
5.	The Resources of the Northwest Territories.
6.	Canada's Gold Mining Industry.
7.	Canada's Base Metal Industry.
8.	Canada's Non-Metallics Industry.
9.	Canada's Wealth in Water and Water-Powers.
10.	The Development and Conservation of Canada's Natural Resources.
1937-	38
1.	The Future of Canada's Gold Industry.
2.	Base Metals, and the Increasing Diversity of Canada's Mining Industry.
3.	The Economic Advantages of Mining to Canada.
4.	Recent Developments in Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
5.	The Prospector-His Place in Canada's Mining Industry.
6.	Canada's Forest Industry-Its Place in Our National Economy.
1938-	39
1.	Five Years of Canadian Mining Progress.
2.	Canada's Forest Estate.
3.	The Rehabilitation of our Indian Wards.
4.	National Parks and Historic Sites.
5.	The Resources of Canada's Western Northland.
6.	The Development of Canada's Oil Resources.
POST OFFICE publication: the modern mercury


Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: 1.	Has the Post Office Department issued a publication entitled "A Modern Mercury"?
2.	If so, how many copies have been printed, and to whom have they been distributed?
3.	What was the cost of preparing, printing and distributing this publication?
4.	For what purpose was the publication prepared ?


Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	71,500-Schools, colleges and other educational centres, through the cooperation of provincial departments of education. Public libraries. Boards of trade and chambers of commerce. Select list of representative business men.
3.	$7,51332.
4.	The publication is part of the regular publicity activities of the department and was designed to bring about a better understanding of the postal service with a view to securing cooperation and a wider use of postal facilities.
MACKAY's POINT, N.S., WHARF


Mr. MacNEIL:: 1.	What was the total amount of expenditure for repairs to the government wharf at MaeKay's point, Victoria county, Nova Scotia, during the period January 1, 1938, to February 1, 1939?
2.	What amount was expended for materials?
3.	What amount was expended on labour costs ?
4.	What was the rate of remuneration for the foreman in charge when such repairs were underway ?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	$399.35.
2.	$186.80.
3.	$212.55.
4.	$4.50 a day.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. THOMPSON:: What was the total debt of the dominion government, including the railway debt, on March 31, of each of the years 1914, 1920, 1930, 1935, and 1938?


Mr. FONTAINE:: 1.	What was the debt of Canada as at
March 31:	(a) 1911;	(b) 1921;	(c) 1930;
(d) 1935?
2.	What is the debt of Canada at the present time?
3. No.
[Mr. Crerar.l

Questions as Orders for Returns


IMMIGRATION
Mr. FONTAINE:: 1.	How many immigrants were admitted into
Canada, each year: (a) during the period from October 10,	1911, to December 29,	1921;
(b) during the period from December 29, 1921, to August 1, 1930?
2.	What amounts were expended by the
government for immigration purposes, each year: (a) during the period from October 10, 1911, to December 29, 1921;	(b) during the
period from December 29, 1921, to August 1, 1930?


BANK DEBITS, PAPER MONEY, GOLD HOLDINGS AND EXPORTS
Mr. MARSHALL:: 1.	On	what	authority, at	what	times, in
what amounts, and for what purposes has paper money been issued by the:	(a) Dominion of
Canada	since	confederation;	(b)	Bank ofCanada	since	incorporation;	(c)	chartered
banks since act passed eliminating their issue by 1940?
2.	What are the particulars surrounding the issue of $35,000,000 about 1934?


Mr. MARSHALL:: 1.	What is the amount of: (a) bank debits to individual accounts in Canada for the month of December, 1938; (b) paper money authorized and in circulation, shown separately, in the same month, and how much of it Dominion of Canada, Bank of Canada, and chartered bank issue?
2.	What was the percentage of: (a) paper
money in circulation to question 1 (a);	(b)
gold held by the Dominion of Canada and Bank of Canada, shown separately, in proportion to question 1 (a) and (b).
3.	How much gold, and at what value per ounce, was exported each year from 1929 to 1938 inclusive?
4.	Why is the gold produced in Canada exported and not stored by the government?


PRAIRIE PROVINCES DROUGHT RELIEF
Mr. HAYHURST :: What was the total federal assistance towards drought relief in each of the prairie provinces for the years 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937 and 1938?


DEBT CANCELLATION IN SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. HAYHURST:: 1.	What was the total amount of federal debt cancellation that became effective in Saskatchewan in each of the years 1935, 1936, 1937 and 1938?
2.	What was the amount of corporation (mortgage and trust company) debt cancellation in Saskatchewan for the same years?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. GAUTHIER:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and any other persons, associations, provincial governments or others with respect to radio programs sponsored by breweries or wineries in the province of Quebec.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The correspondence asked for is exceedingly voluminous. Had the hon. member been here I would have suggested that he allow this notice of motion to stand and that he visit the broadcasting corporation and select the pertinent material. I am also going to suggest that as the regulation referred to has been varied, possibly he would now wish to drop the motion.
Motion stands.


L. H. BEER
Henry Herbert Stevens: For a copy of the order in council appointing the late L. H. Beer, salvage officer, together with a statement showing the duties performed by the said appointee.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would suggest that this motion be dropped.
Motion dropped.


INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, CANADIAN AND EMPIRE DEFENCE
Thomas Langton Church: For a copy of all telegrams, agreements, orders in council, letters, cables and other documents exchanged between the government of Great Britain and the government of Canada, with reference to international affairs, defence and empire defence, during the years 1938 and 1939, including all documents in relation thereto since the last white paper was issued by the government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, the tabling of all communications between the government of Great Britain and the government of Canada with reference to international affairs and defence during the years 1938 and 1939 would of course require the consent of the government of the United Kingdom. Such consent would not be given for the publication at the present time of documents containing references to the position and attitude of other countries, and the Canadian government would not consider it reasonable to request it.


TELEPHONE RATES AND TOLLS INQUIRY
Thomas Langton Church: For a copy of all letters, correspondence, orders in council, telegrams, resolutions and
2284	COMMONS
Business oj the House-Further Legislation
other documents exchanged between the government of Canada or the Minister of Transport, or any officer, the board of transport commissioners, and the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, regarding an inquiry into the reduction of telephone rates and tolls in Canada, showing what action has been taken and when; what hearing there has been or witnesses examined, and including a copy of information given to the acting minister, the Honourable Mr. Ilsley by the department in the matter, as announced by the said acting minister in the house on Wednesday, March 22.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend the leader
of the opposition (Mr. Manion) asked me last week if I would indicate to the house what further legislation would likely be brought down during the present session. I intimated to my hon. friend that I would endeavour to do so to-day.
Hon. members will have noticed that since the question was addressed to the government a number of measures have been added to the order paper, and on the order paper of to-day, under introduction of bills and government orders, will be found most of the legislation remaining to be dealt with at the present session. So far as I have been able to ascertain, the following are the only additional bills likely to be introduced:
Bills respecting: Live stock and live stock products; cheese and cheese factory improvement; agricultural products cooperative marketing; cattle and beef marketing.
A possible amendment to the Dairy Industry Act.
A bill providing for the constitution of a salt fish board.
Two minor amendments to the Meat and Canned Foods Act.
A bill respecting official secrets.
A bill making provision for the sealing of royal instruments.
Certain amendments to the criminal code.
Probably a bill concerning the office of Chief Justice of Canada.
Possible amendments to the National Revenue Act.
A bill respecting the Toronto harbour commissioners.
[Mr. Church.}
A bill to give effect to the provisions of a convention with the United States providing for emergency regulations of the level of Rainy lake and other boundary waters.
A government bill respecting interest on small loans will be introduced in the senate. Other measures from the Department of Finance include a bill to create a mortgage rediscount bank, a Canadian National railway financing and guarantee bill, and a bill to amend the Gold Clause Act.
It is necessary to mention, in addition, possible legislation in the nature of amendments to existing acts arising out of the budget; possible minor amendments to some other existing acts, and such legislation as may arise out of the recommendations of special standing committees. There are also the supplementary estimates.
I think that gives the program very completely. Something may arise of which I have not knowledge at the moment, but so far as I have been able to ascertain, the house now has before it the legislative program for the remainder of the session.
Hon. R. .T. MANION (Leader of the Opposition) :	The program certainly seems a
fairly liberal one, using the word not in its political sense. I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman if he will state what day is likely to be set aside for the discussion of the international crises through which we have passed since last September. A week or two ago I believe the right hon. gentleman told one of the members from Toronto, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), that he would deal with the matter shortly, and I should be glad if he would inform the house when he is likely to do so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope to be able to make a statement concerning external affairs which will take in the matters to which my hon. friend has referred and, in a comprehensive way, other matters which I think hon. members will wish to discuss under that heading, some day this week. I should like to be able to promise it for Wednesday, but I think it may be Thursday, and I may even have to wait until next week. If I can possibly manage it I shall have a statement ready for Thursday of this week.


Robert James Manion: If I may be permitted, I think Wednesday would be a bad day, because I expect that a number of hon. members will wish to take part in the discussion, and on a Wednesday they would not have an opportunity to do so. The day selected should be a full day.

Canada-United, States Trade Agreement
If I might ask one further question, has the right hon. gentleman given any thought to the question of the length of the Easter adjournment, which will take place within a week or ten days?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have given some thought to it. Frankly, if it were desired by hon. members generally to have quite a short recess, in view of the possibility of hastening the work of the session, the government would propose that we adjourn on the Thursday night before Good Friday and resume on Tuesday. Unless I receive some indication to the contrary, I will place a motion to that effect on the order paper.


Mr. POULIOT:: Would the leader of the opposition tell the house what matters are particularly interesting the hon. member for. Greenwood (Mr. Massey)?


Walter Edward Foster: Order.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On schedule I:
Customs tariff-ex 520. Raw cotton and cotton linters not further manufactured than ginned: waste wholly of cotton unfit for use without further manufacture: free.
Mr. HARRIS:: Would the minister be good enough to give the imports under this item, which I think he will agree are very heavy? Further, how much of this $22,000,000 of imports comes in from the United States, how much from Egypt, how much if any from India; and does the excise tax provision apply on the imports-


Mr. DUNNING:: Let me give the figures first.


Joseph Henry Harris: I thought one statement
might cover the whole question.


Charles Avery Dunning: In 1938 our total imports of raw cotton, not further manufactured than ginned, were valued at $17,400,000, in round figures. Of that amount $58,000 worth came from the United Kingdom, $16,900,000 worth from the United States, $378,000 worth from Egypt and $42,000 worth from British India. Also under this item we imported cotton linters, not further manufactured than ginned, to a total value of $414,000. of which $395,000 worth came from the United States.


Joseph Henry Harris: That covers my first question. My second question is this: Is excise tax ordinarily applied on the imports from Egypt.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Joseph Henry Harris: And an excise tax of three per cent against the very heavy importations valued at $16,900,000 from the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Joseph Henry Harris: There is no excise tax on the imports from British India?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Joseph Henry Harris: The observations I wish to make at this time are somewhat similar to those which have been made. In this instance they apply more particularly to the excise tax, and to loss of revenue which will result to Canada from the passing of the legislation We will relieve the Canadian importer from paying the three per cent excise tax on imports valued at $16,900,000. In other words, Canada has made a trade gift of a half a million dollars on this particular item.


Charles Avery Dunning: To whom?


Joseph Henry Harris: Both ways, but much more so to the impoverishment of the Canadian treasury. In charge of that treasury at the present time is an administration following in the footsteps of the Fielding Liberals, who for years enunciated in the house the doctrine of revenue taxation with which to run the country. To my mind this half million dollars on cotton could be considered a tax of a kind which would meet with the approval of the Fielding Liberals, who believed they must have revenue from taxation of this kind rather than give tariff protection. I admit there is an element of protection in that three per cent, and I admit what is in the mind of the minister right now, that cotton goods might eventually cost the Canadian consumer a little less-but not a great deal.
As to the other question I had in mind, I doubt very much whether I shall receive an answer to it. I say that because now we have the spectacle of the Minister of Trade and Commerce handling the section of the treaty which has to do with the concessions the United States have given us-I use the word "concessions" because the Prime Minister used it. The Minister of Finance has to answer for the so-called concessions we have given to the United States. Even though the dollar value in straight duty concessions is two to one against us, when we come to consider the free items we find that then will be far less revenue to the dominion treasury after the excise tax provision is done away with. I have studied the many answers

Canada-United States Trade Agreement
which have been given, but still I cannot see what concessions Canada has received to offset the eventual removal of the three per cent excise tax in respect of these free items. I do not know what we are going to get back for the half million dollars we are giving with this particular concession. I know what the minister's answer will be, but I want to discharge my responsibility and to go on record as saying that this is a departure from the tariff-for-revenue policy, which was part and parcel of the 1919 platform of the Liberal party. It will make it more difficult for those who follow the Minister of Finance in years to come to balance the budget. I do not know of any provision which has been made to balance the equation with Egypt on the one hand and to assist the British empire trade from India on the other. To my mind the three per cent narrowed the preference with British India, which is really an evasion of the spirit of the 1932 trade agreement. This is another one of the trade gifts from the treasury of Canada which in the aggregate will amount to a million dollars a month.


Charles Avery Dunning: My answer as to cotton is that this concession from the treasury is a concession to the Canadian consumer. Cotton is not produced in Canada. There is no element of protection whatsoever in the item as it now stands. The dropping of the three per cent on this item will therefore be considered a concession by those who use cotton.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-522.	Rovings, yarns and
warps wholly of cotton, not more advanced than singles, n.o.p.: 15 per cent, and three cents per pound.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-522c:
(i)	Rovings, yarns and warps wholly of cotton, including threads, cords and twines generally used for sewing, stitching, packaging and other purposes, n.o.p.; cotton yarns wholly or partially covered with metallic strip, generally known as tinsel thread: 20 per cent and three cents per pound.
(ii)	Cotton yarns, wholly covered with a double layer of metallic strip in single strand only, when imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in the manufacture of electrical conductors, in their own factories: 15 per cent.
(iii)	Sewing thread, wholly of cotton, on spools, not to exceed 250 yards on one spool: 22J per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-522d.	Yarns and warps
wholly of cotton, mercerized, number forty and finer, imported, under regulations prescribed by the minister, for sale to manufacturers, to be further manufactured in their own factories: 22i per cent.
Item agreed to.
[Mr. Harris.!
Customs tariff-522e. Cotton sewing thread yarn and crochet, knitting, darning and embroidery yarn, in hanks, when imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in their own factories in the manufacturing or spooling of cotton sewing thread and crochet, knitting, darning and embroidery cottons: 12i per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 523. Woven fabrics, wholly of cotton, not bleached, mercerized nor coloured, n.o.p.: 17i per cent, and three cents per pound.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 523; ex 532. Cotton bags, seamless or not: 27i per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-523a. Woven fabrics, wholly of cotton, bleached or mercerized, not coloured, [DOT] n.o.p.: 20 per cent and three cents per pound.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 523b. Woven fabrics, wholly of cotton, printed, dyed or coloured, n.o.p.:
(i)	Valued at more than 80 cents per pound: 20 per cent, and three cents per pound.
(ii)	Valued at 50 cents or more but not more than 80 cents per pound: 25 per cent and three cents per pound.
(iii)	Valued at less than 50 cents per pound: 27i per cent and three and a half cents per pound.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 523b. Woven fabrics, wholly of cotton, commonly known as denims, when imported by manufacturers for use in their own factories in the manufacture of garments: 20 per cent and three cents per pound.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-523e. Woven fabrics wholly of cotton, composed of yarns of counts of 100 or more, including all such fabrics in which the average of the count of warp and weft yams is 100 or more: 27i per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 532;	532b; ex 573.
Enamelled carriage, shelf and table oilcloth; woven fabric wholly of cotton, for covering books; fabrics, wholly of cotton, coated or impregnated, n.o.p.: 30 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 532. Clothing, wearing apparel and articles made from woven fabrics, and all textile manufactures, wholly or partially manufactured, composed wholly of cotton, n.o.p.: 30 per cent.
Mr. HEAPS:: Has the minister received any protests from manufacturers of clothing and other articles in connection with this particular item?

Canada-United States Trade Agreement


Mr. MacNICOL:: Protests at the present time are wholly useless.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have no recollection of any protest. I have asked if my officers have any recollection of any, and they say they have not.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I have had some.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no change in the item of course.


Abraham Albert Heaps: There is a change in item 548, then.


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, we have not come to that yet.


Abraham Albert Heaps: They are so nearly similar, one might make a mistake.


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps the hon. member would make his observations on item 548.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-532a. Handkerchiefs, wholly of cotton: 30 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-548. Clothing, wearing apparel and articles, made from woven fabrics, and all textile manufactures, wholly or partially manufactured, composed wholly or in part of vegetable fibres but not containing wool, n.o.p.; fabrics, coated or impregnated, composed wholly or in part of vegetable fibres but not containing silk, artificial silk nor wool, n.o.p.: 30 per cent.
Abraham Albert Heaps: Perhaps I could again put the question I put before.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not remember any protests made in connection with this item. There may have been the odd one, but there was nothing that impressed itself on my mind.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I received protests from both organizations and manufacturers with regard to this item.


Charles Avery Dunning: In connection with what products?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Ladies' dresses.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is number 567. We are on 548, diapers and collars and cuffs.


Mr. COLD WELL:: These items deal with various types of textile goods, do they not?


Charles Avery Dunning: We are now on the textile schedule of the tariff.


Mr. COLDWELL:: I should like to protest against the tariff on textiles.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why?


Major James William Coldwell: Two or three years ago a royal commission inquired into the textile
industry, and the revelations then made were such as to warrant this committee examining into the whole basis of the industry in relation to the protection it receives. I submit that I speak for a large number of people who have to buy textiles. During the past few years I have had the opportunity from time to time of comparing the prices of goods of similar kind and quality on both sides of the international boundary. For instance, take overalls, something which affects nearly every workingman.


John Ritchie MacNicol: He cannot buy them if he has no money in his pocket.


Major James William Coldwell: He cannot buy them if he has no money in his pocket, but the purchasing power of the people who happen to have some money in their pockets is seriously cut down by the duties imposed on articles such as this.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is difficult to generalize in connection with textiles, because each of these items really stands on its own feet. We cannot generalize with respect to the rates of duty applicable; they vary widely. If my hon. friend wishes to talk about overalls, it would facilitate the discussion if he would wait until the overall item is under consideration.


Major James William Coldwell: I have endeavoured to facilitate the business of the committee by not rising as each item came up.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have no complaint at all.


Major James William Coldwell: I could have risen on any number of items. If the minister wishes,
I can rise and say something on each item.
I wanted to refer to that particular case, and I realize it is not covered by this item. We pay from $2 to $3 for a suit of overalls, and I have seen the same type and quality of garment being sold on the other side for from $1 to $1.25. As a matter of fact, I have a suit of overalls which I bought across the line for comparative purposes which cost me 69 cents for the pants and 69 cents for the smock. These are matters of concern to the people of Canada. There are those of us who feel that this industry has extracted large sums of money from the people by way of increased prices under a protective tariff. I do not want to discuss this matter at length, but I wish to protest, on behalf of the people whom I represent in this parliament.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Hon. members rise to discuss textiles generally, but they forget that there are many kinds of textiles. For instance, there are woollen textiles, worsted textiles, cotton textiles, rayon textiles and many other types. Because certain things were brought
2288	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
out by the Turgeon commission there has been a general condemnation of the textile industry. If hon. members will examine the financial statements of the woollen textile industry they will find that many of the claims made against that industry on the floor of this house have been absolutely without foundation. The fact of the matter is that during the worst years of the depression the woollen textile industry proved to be the greatest boon in the matter of employment. In spite of the protection they received, the products of this industry were purchased by the consumer of Canada at a lower price than they had in twenty-five years, a condition which was brought about by internal competition in the industry. When we are dealing with textiles we should be fair and discuss the particular category to which we wish to refer. To-day the woollen industry is suffering seriously as the result of importations. Sixty-four per cent of all woollen worsteds used last year were imported.


Charles Avery Dunning: May I suggest to my hon. friend that he follow his own suggestion? We are on a cotton item. While his remarks would be very effective on a woollen item, I think he would be the first to recognize that there is a great difference between the different branches of the textile industry. I suggest that he defer his most useful remarks until we get to woollens.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: If hon. members who stand in their places and condemn the textile industry would give a little thought and study to the Turgeon commission report, they would realize that there are various categories into which that industry is divided.


Major James William Coldwell: I waited to discuss this particular matter until we reached an item containing the words "not containing wool."


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What are the importations under this item?


Charles Avery Dunning: They are under a number of heads.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Could I also have the
volume?


Charles Avery Dunning: The importations from the United States last year of collars and cuffs of vegetable fibre amounted to 60 pounds, and were valued at $117. The importations from the United States of diapers, quilts and counterpanes of vegetable fibre amounted to 10,800 pounds, valued at $6,900; fabrics, coated or impregnated, of vegetable fibres, n.o.p., imports from the United States, 67,000 pounds, valued at $33,000; clothing and wearing apparel of vegetable fibres, imports from the United 
States, 30,000 pounds, valued at $55,800; textile manufactures of vegetable fibres, imports from the United States, 491.900 pounds, valued at $292,000.
That completes the item. We have also some exports under that item, but I suppose my hon. friend is not interested in the exports.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Not at present, but I am interested in following up the figures the minister has given me. I endeavoured to locate certain figures in the current trade returns, but it was impossible for me to ascertain from that source either the volume or the value. Has the minister any computation of the volume of domestic production from vegetable fibres?


Charles Avery Dunning: Unfortunately we cannot separate them. The only one that is separated in the bureau of statistics is cotton. That leaves jute, wool, silk and artificial silk all together.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Can the minister give an approximate estimate of the value of importations of products of vegetable fibres, and of the value of the production in Canada? I am simply anxious to ascertain whether the importation is sufficiently large to prejudice the production here. Or is it. of such a nature as merely to ensure competition which will serve to limit prices rather than to curtail the volume of domestic production?


Charles Avery Dunning: On that particular item I would answer in the affirmative, but I can have the totals of each one of these items of Canadian production made up. It will take a little time, but I will give my hon. friend the information when I get it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I still think it would help us very much if we had the import figures and the value. The Minister of Finance has given us a tabular statement of rates, but it is almost impossible for an hon. member to compute the volume, as the minister would admit, if he saw the computations which I have made and appreciated the time I have spent going through the entire tariff and trade returns to get the information. It requires a great deal of labour. I think a member of the house should be spared that extraordinary work when the minister and his officers have in their hands a complete statement with regard to the several classifications and the imports under those classifications.


Charles Avery Dunning: I can only say that I come here with five complete bound volumes of various kinds of information which I and my officers think may be asked for, and

Canada-United States Trade Agreement
which include such separations as we are able to get from the bureau of statistics. I did not arrange to have included even in my own notes the totals under these items, because you cannot add silk and cotton together and make it mean anything. That is the real trouble.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, I was not asking for
that. I was dealing with vegetable fibres and products manufactured from vegetable fibres.


Charles Avery Dunning: We shall see what we
can get.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The minister knows that
for the province of Quebec the production of manufactures of vegetable fibres is very important indeed. I am not going to enter upon a discussion of textiles, but I would say to my western friends that there must be give and take in imposing a general tariff, and I am sure if they will look into the facts they will not agree to wiping out an industry which gives the greatest amount of employment of any single industry in a great province like Quebec.


Joseph Henry Harris: I should like to add a word to what the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George has just said. The imports under this particular item of wearing apparel made from vegetable fibres were, in 1935, $254,000, and that increased in the year just closed, 1937, to $396,000. Taking the preceding item, the imports of cotton clothing and cotton textile manufactures increased from $589,000 in 1935 to $980,000 in 1937; imports of fabrics wholly of cotton increased from $520,000, in 1935, to $992,000 in 1937; imports of woven fabrics wholly of cotton, bleached or mercerized, increased from $889,000, in 1935, to $1,438,000 in 1937; and the imports under item ex 523, woven fabrics wholly of cotton, not bleached, increased from $512,000, in 1935, to $1,341,000 in 1937. That is to say, the imports under each item almost doubled since 1935. ,
My reason for rising at this time is again to point out that this is an industry which was reestablished at the so-called Bennett emergency session of parliament, and the return brought down by the national employment commission reflects the effects in increased employment of the measure of protection embodied in that legislation. If one looks at the returns of the national employment commission and takes into consideration the average increase of population, which since 1929 has been 9-96 per cent, one observes that there is an increase of 11,234 people employed in the textile industry
over the number employed previously to the implementing of the legislation which was passed at that emergency session.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That many more people
are employed in factories?


Joseph Henry Harris: Yes, in textile factories. I am taking the figures in the Purvis report under the heading of Fibres, Textiles and Their Products. When you consider the increase in population, which is taken on a basis of ten per cent in ten years, you find that there are 11,234 more people working in the textile industry to-day than were employed in that industry prior to the enactment of the 1930 legislation.
Of all the things Canada needs at the present time it is that we should all get together, entirely apart from political considerations, and see if we cannot get our people back to work. Here is an outstanding example of an industry in which close to 12,000 more of our Canadian people are being employed. I have every sympathy with the consumer in the cost of this material. I know the consumer is very much concerned. Any one of us, if forced to do it, could make observations from the point of view taken by my hon. friend who has just left the chamber; but should we not, Mr. Chairman, have as our first consideration the fact that a great number of our people in Canada are now unemployed, that 157,000 are now looking for jobs? Twenty thousand have been taken care of by primary industry in its expansion, I will admit; but there has been a shrinkage of 157,000 in the number of people engaged in secondary industry. Here is one of the very few majoi secondary industries in this country in which there has been a substantial improvement in employment since 1930.
Then we come to the 1935 agreement, and we see an increase in the importations, which, I think the Minister of Finance will agree, have practically doubled in the last three years, the real reason being the 1935 agreement. Now we have consummated another trade agreement which went into effect on January 1, 1939, and if we add the cumulative effects of the last three years to what is going to take place in the next three, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that there will be any real expansion of employment in this country. My main point is that these three very important departments, labour, commerce and finance, do not seem to be characterized by any cohesion or cooperation or correlation with respect to unemployment. In spite of the Turgeon report and the free trade philosophy
2290	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
enunciated at the present time, I still believe that we should look at this matter from a business point of view and endeavour to do everything we can to extend the possibilities of employment in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
_ Customs tariff-ex 552. Felt, splint for use in making moulded splints for medical purposes, 10 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 553. Household blankets, wholly of cotton, not to include horse blankets, automobile or steamer rugs, or similar articles: 20 per cent and 5 cents per pound.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What is the production in Canada, and what was the importation last year?


Charles Avery Dunning: This is only blankets of cotton. The imports from the United States last year were SI,500 in value. The last complete year for which we have production is 1936, and our home production was then $1,849,000.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Were there any imports of cotton blankets from Japan?


Charles Avery Dunning: No. The total imports from all countries last year were only $3,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 555. Clothing, being women's and children's outer garments, wholly or in part of wool or similar animal fibres, but of which the component of chief value is not silk nor artificial silk: 32J per cent.
Karl Kenneth Homuth: This item has to do with cloth of which wool is one of the contents.


Charles Avery Dunning: Outer garments made from wool, not the cloth itself.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: That is more serious, because if the cloth comes in we have at least the privilege of manufacturing it into outer garments. In the factories of the United States, not only in the large clothing factories but in smaller industries, they run nine or ten months on their own production and then, in order to keep their organizations complete, they go ahead and manufacture for the foreign market. We find it in many lines, in toys and in other things that are dumped into the Canadian market. We cannot prove that these things are dumped because they can show that they are willing to sell the products at the same price in the United States. But every time we lower the tariff on something that is turned out by mass production in the United States, we once more

add to the unemployment situation in Canada. Take worsted and many other cloths made in the United States and you will find that they are all inferior to and of less weight per yard than the same goods produced here. You have an inferior article. We are faced with tremendous competition from Great Britain in the woollen industry, and this item will extend that competition to the garment industry of Canada.


Charles Avery Dunning: I must give information on this item because I am quite sure the hon. member does not desire to paint the picture of the woollen clothing industry darker than it really is. The fact is that our total imports from all countries under this item in 1938 were $265,000, whereas in 1936 our home production, taken from the Women's 'Factory Clothing Industry, the standard publication for the trade, was $17,799,000. It is very difficult for me to see how imports of $265,000 could cause any appreciable amount of unemployment in an industry whose home production is nearly $18,000,000.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I doubt whether these computations are made on the same basis.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have gone carefully
over every item. Pyjamas might not be an outer garment, but the volume of importation would not seriously affect the result. Bathrobes might not be an outer garment, and you could take $300,000 off for that. These are woollen bathrobes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not dispute that computation, but I dispute the computation which the minister cited in referring to the same items when dealing with the production in Canada.


Charles Avery Dunning: They are positively under the same tariff item; I can vouch for that.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: They may be under the
same tariff item, but I do not think there is any country in the world better able than the United States to work cotton and rayon into cloth.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am speaking of wool
only.


Mr. ISNOR:: Will the hon. member mention some of the items manufactured wholly from wool in the United States and exported into Canada in large quantities?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We are dealing with item
ex 555, wholly or in part of wool.


Charles Avery Dunning: That brings it into the
wool category.
MARCH 27, 1939	u
Canada-United States Trade Agreement


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I repeat that no country
in the world is better able than the United States to work cotton into cloth. I could show the house knitted goods which an expert might be expected to describe as wholly of wool, yet when you examine them you find that they contain a large percentage of vegetable fibre. The United States manufacturers are experts at making up cheap cloth that has a very presentable appearance. It is not a question of what has come in; the point is that we are constantly tinkering with the tariff and endangering the jobs of Canadian workmen. We have made an appreciable reduction. I realize that protest is of no avail, because the treaty is in force, but it shows that in these various items we are jeopardizing the jobs of a great many people engaged in the textile and woollen industry of Canada.


Charles Avery Dunning: I must object to that
as applying to the item before us. I shall try to give information on each item as we come to it in order that the committee may judge, but as far as United States exports to Canada under this item are concerned, I may say that the United Kingdom beat them, because only $82,000 came into this country from the United States as against $159,000 from the United Kingdom.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: But you are making
it possible for a lot more to come in.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Do you want
more than thirty-two per cent protection?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: During the years from
1930 on, the Canadian people purchased woollens cheaper as a result of internal competition within Canada, and employment was given to the greatest number of people engaged in any single secondary industry, than at any other time in the previous thirty years.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: And they sold their wool, farm products, labour and everything else they had to put on the market at very much lower prices, in some cases lower than had been received for such goods over a period of four hundred years.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It is obvious that if this tariff were twice as high there would still be a certain amount of finished material coming into this country, just as there are people who purchase particular brands of clothing or shoes made abroad, irrespective of price. I could mention coats made in England which people prefer to buy by name. I believe that at present there is comparatively little finished clothing coming into Canada, because generally speaking the Canadian manufacturers in
this industry have fairly high protection, and with the internal competition they are able to compete in price and quality with goods from other parts of the world.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What quantity of goods under this item came in free under the $100 exemption? I suppose the answer should include the series, ex 555, ex 567 and ex 567a.


Charles Avery Dunning: As to all kinds of clothing -that is, through the whole textile schedule, wool, silk, rayon, cotton or any combination of them-the nearest figure we have is about $3,500,000.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That would be for eight months?	*


Charles Avery Dunning: For eleven months.


Thomas Miller Bell: How much woollen
clothing is taken back by visitors from the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am afraid I cannot answer that.


Thomas Miller Bell: We should look at both sides.


John Ritchie MacNicol: There is only one side as far as wheat is concerned.


Charles Avery Dunning: To the best of my knowledge the United States authorities do not make a record of it themselves.


Mr. LENNARD:: Have the government in their employ experts who can determine the amount of wool or cotton in garments being shipped in? Is an inspection made?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


John Gordon Ross: Try and get any by without putting it under the highest schedule they can classify it under.


Frank Exton Lennard: Regularly?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, at ports of entry.


Frank Exton Lennard: Are they men who are highly competent in regard to textiles, or just someone picked up and given a two weeks' course?


James Lorimer Ilsley: They are pretty good.


Frank Exton Lennard: I do not want to hold up this item, but could the minister give me further information by letter some time as to who these men are and where they received their instruction?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, I can get that information.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canada-United Stales
[Stage Direction]
Trade Agreement
Customs tariff-ex 567. Clothing and wearing apparel, n.o.p., made from woven fabrics of which silk is the component of chief value: 30 per cent.
Customs tariff-ex 567a. Clothing and wearing apparel, n.o.p., made from woven fabrics of which the component of chief value is artificial silk or similar synthetic fibres produced by chemical processes: 32i per cent.
.Mr. HEAPS: I should now like to ask the minister the question I asked on the previous item. I think this takes in ladies' dresses made of artificial silk.
Charles Avery Dunning: Under ex 567a our imports of artificial silk clothing and wearing apparel from the United States last year were $214,000. Our total exports were $1,870,000.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Is that exports to the United
States?


Charles Avery Dunning: They were very small.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: We could not get them in there.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, we have a little; we sent to the United States $12,000 worth.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What was our total production?


Charles Avery Dunning: The total production was


Abraham Albert Heaps: Perhaps the minister can inform me if the information that has come to me is correct. I understand that when the duties were reduced on the finished product there was not a corresponding reduction in duty on the fabric that goes into the making of the dresses, with the result that certain manufacturers find it cheaper to import the finished product from the United States than to produce it in their own factories. I was told of two factories which have recently gone into the importing of the finished product because of the relatively higher cost of the fabric. Quite a number of girls who were employed in factories making these dresses have been laid off, and the owners of the factories have purchased the finished goods m the United States. Was there a corresponding decrease in the duty on the fabrics when the duty on the finished dresses was reduced?


Charles Avery Dunning: Not in this case, no. The point is that the United States is not the principal source of supply.
_ Mr. HEAPS: I believe the United States is one of the principal sources of supply so far as the fabrics are concerned.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: No, not the fabrics.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The owners of these factories have told me themselves that when they produce these goods they work on such a narrow margin that even a three or four per cent reduction is very important to them. The minister pointed out that they were able to export over $1,000,000 worth of that class of goods, indicating the efficiency of the industry; in fact they actually export these dresses to Great Britain and can compete with goods produced there. There may be some unfairness in the application of this tariff when the duty on the finished product is reduced without a corresponding reduction on imported material entering into the manufacture of the product.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Would similar goods imported from Japan come under the same rate of duty? What was the amount of the importation from Japan?


Charles Avery Dunning: Last year, S9,800.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The minister has not answered the point I raised, whether he does not think it is unfair to the manufacturers of this class of goods when the import duties on dresses are reduced and a corresponding reduction is not made on fabrics entering into their production.


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not speak of that because this agreement does not deal with the fabrics. The fabrics were not discussed between the two countries because, as I pointed out, the United States is not the principal source of supply, although it is an important source. I have before me a request from the garment manufacturers for reduction of the duty on fabrics. I intend to consider it budget-wise. I should not like to give the slightest indication that there is any likelihood of any change in that or any other item of the budget at this moment. The question is not nearly so simple, however, as my hon. friend states it. A number of considerations of very grave importance arise in connection with it, as I think everyone who has had experience with the fabric items will be aware.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Would the minister give us the rate of duty on these articles entering the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes; 45 cents per pound plus 65 per cent.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is reciprocity with a vengeance.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Customs tariff-ex 568. Knitted garments, n.o.p.: 35 per cent.
Customs tariff-568a. Socks and stockings: (ii) N.o.p.:	20 per cent and, per dozen
pairs, $1.
Mr. SENN:: I should like to express the hope-I might call it the pious hope-that the government has now completed all the tariff tinkering it is going to do in regard to these items and, in fact, in regard to the whole woollen schedule. I intend to outline to the committee, if I may, the changes which have occurred during the past three or four years, since the present government took office, concerning these two items in particular and all woollen items generally. First, however, I should like to make some reference to what has been referred to already, the action that was taken in setting up what is known as the Turgeon commission to investigate the textile industry.
This commission went into a good many of our towns and investigated a number of our textile concerns. Unfortunately, while I believe it was set up as a fact finding commission, at times the attitude of commission counsel was such as to approach what might be called persecution in regard to these different industries.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Political persecution.


Mark Cecil Senn: Yes, political persecution, if you want to call it that, instead of an endeavour to find out the facts in regard to these industries. Reference has been made also to the increased activity in the textile industry, particularly in regard to woollens and knitted goods, subsequent to the imposition of the higher duty at the short session of 1930. That was undoubtedly true; the smaller concerns engaged in the manufacture of knitted goods and socks and stockings certainly increased their business to a considerable extent. As has been pointed out already, the result was that internal competition guaranteed to the consumer that prices would not be increased, and in fact prices were lowered in connection with a good many items.
I should like to point out just what has been done in connection with the knitted goods schedules and the socks and stockings items. In 1937 the British preferential tariff on hand knitting yarns, which have to do with knit goods, of course, was reduced from lli cents per pound to 6 cents. On woollen and worsted yarns, for use by manufacturers, the specific duty was reduced from 7\ cents to 5 cents per pound. The duty on socks and stockings was reduced from 30 per cent ad valorem to 20 per cent, while the specific duty
27, 1939	2293
Canada-United, States Trade Agreement
of 75 cents per dozen on stockings was eliminated. At the same time the duty on knitted garments was reduced from 25 per cent to 20 per cent. These figures, of course, all have to do with the British preferential tariff; but on January 1 of this year the present schedules came into effect, under which the duties have been further reduced. On knitted goods there has been a reduction from 32i per cent to 20 per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: Just on garments; not on socks and stockings.


Mark Cecil Senn: On knitted garments, and the 25 cents per pound specific duty has been eliminated.


Charles Avery Dunning: On garments only.


Mark Cecil Senn: On socks and stockings the duty has been reduced from 32i per cent to 20 per cent and the specific duty from $1.35 to $1. These are quite material changes, in addition to those previously brought about.
I do not believe they would have been so serious, however, if it had not been for the favoured nation arrangement. Undoubtedly goods of this kind will come in from other countries enjoying most favoured nation treatment, to the detriment of these industries in Canada.
I do condemn very strongly indeed this continual tinkering with the tariff, because it puts these companies in the position that they are not able to go ahead with any sense of security, and cannot plan their operations for any length of time ahead. I think all any industry asks in this country is that the Canadian market be preserved for goods manufactured and produced in our own country.


Charles Avery Dunning: Entirely?


Mark Cecil Senn: I would say this, that if the home market is preserved for them there will be sufficient internal competition to take care of the price.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is, if we do not admit any from outside? My hon. friend is advocating total prohibition?


Mark Cecil Senn: No matter what the duty may be, some goods will come in, but I say any duty is high enough only when it gives our own people a fair chance to produce their goods and enjoy their share of the home market.
I should like to point out that a large proportion of the woollen and knitted goods is produced in the small towns of Canada. In the province of Quebec there are thirty-nine towns which are described as mill towns, having mills engaged in the production of woollen or knitted goods. In Ontario there
2294	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
are eighty-two such towns, in the maritime provinces eighteen and in the west eight, making a total of 147 of these towns in which the textile industry accounts for a large part of the business carried on. When the Turgeon commission was sitting in a small town in Ontario the editor of the local newspaper asked permission to make a statement at the close of the hearing. His request was acceded to, and he went on to tell what the two small textile industries located in that town had done for it. He said these industries were founded in 1903, when the town had a population of some two thousand. Since then, coincident with the growth of these industries, the town had developed and progressed until at the time of the hearing its population had doubled. He quoted figures showing that the employees of the textile industries of that town paid over twenty-five per cent of the total taxes, and that less than one-fifth of one per cent of the unpaid taxes was owed 'by these employees. He stated further that the debenture debt of the town had been cut in two during the worst years of the depression, and said that was directly attributable to the payrolls of these companies. He also stated that during the thirty-three years these companies had been operating they had never been convicted under the minimum wage act and that the wage earners of the town had never suggested that a labour union should be organized. I should like to quote the final words of his statement as they appear in the report of the commission:
The receipt of steady incomes by the mill employees and their consequent ability to pay their taxes, water and hydro bills, has been the main factor that has made possible our miles of street and sidewalk paving, our fire protection, hydro, water works and sewer systems, and the upkeep of our hospitals, schools, churches, public library and many other byroads of life that spell comfort, convenience and social development-all unsurpassed in any town of our size in Canada. The district benefits too because the products it grows are sold in town to the mill employees, so the fabric of prosperity is so intertwined that we are all interdependent on one another. The heads of the company are leaders in all the town's philanthropies, and one fact is also certain, that to an unusual degree there are on the company payroll employees who because of age and infirmity would not be on the average payroll in mills elsewhere-and are only on there because of the kindly heart of the men at the top. We whose experience goes back many years, who have seen our town march hand in hand with the company, step by step up the ladder that has brought us to our present position I know would deplore as a tragedy any drastic change that would result in lower-mg our standard of living, because without our mills there would soon be moss growing on our streets.

I put that on Hansard because I think it is a fair description of many of the smaller towns in Ontario and Quebec, where these industries for many years have been the main enterprises and have done so much to develop not only the towns but the country surrounding them.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is difficult to let that pass without comment. Certainly no one in the house wants to ruin any towns anywhere; I am quite sure of that.


Mark Cecil Senn: I know that.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am also sure that the items we are now discussing cannot have any such effect as my hon. friend so gloomily predicts. What are the facts? We are dealing with an agreement made with the United States. Last year importations of knitted garments into Canada from the United States were valued at just $73,000, and our Canadian production stood at $8,740,000. The major importations are of course not related to this item at all. Those major importations are from the United Kingdom, and even from the United Kingdom last year we imported only $650,000 worth under this item. Those are the figures as against a total production of between $8,000,000 and $9,000,000.
As hon. members have been considering the two items together, probably I should give some figures with respect to socks and stockings, so as to complete the reference to knitted goods. Our total imports of all kinds of socks and stockings amounted to $30,000 from all countries, while our own production was valued at over $17,000,000. Let us look at these things in their proper proportions. Surely there is nothing ruinous about competition of that kind.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Then are these items
just a gesture to the United States, which will amount to nothing whatever to them?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, they serve to appease
the military spirit of the world.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: We had better have
the appeasement here. If the United States asked for these concessions, surely they asked for them for a purpose, namely, that they would be able to export to Canada. There are substantial reductions in these various items. While we may say that importations from all countries amount to only eight, ten or fifteen per cent, nevertheless they have asked for these concessions with the idea that they will be able to export all these products into Canada, and they will be placed in the same position,

so far as socks, garments and so on are concerned, as they are with respect to many other manufactured articles, such as toys, where they would be able to dump excess production into Canada.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend spoke
about importations of eight per cent and fifteen per cent. I would point out that imports are less than one per cent of our Canadian production.


Mark Cecil Senn: The minister has given figures showing that importations in the last two or three years have been very small in comparison with the amount produced in Canada.
I shall not dispute the accuracy of his figures;
I believe they are correct. However, here is the situation: The tariff was reduced once by the 1935 agreement, and our companies have been able to carry on and to maintain their position in the British market. I know of some companies whose payrolls in the last year have fallen off by nearly $100,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: In 1937 employment in this industry was higher than it had been for fifteen years.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Give us 1938.


Mark Cecil Senn: Not in 1938, by any means.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There is a decrease between 1938 and 1937.


Mark Cecil Senn: There comes a time when
goods will begin to come in over the tariff which now exists. If we can have an assurance from the minister that this will be the last step for some considerable time, I am sure everybody will be delighted, and industry can then go along with a feeling of security. But how do they know what is going to happen next?


Charles Avery Dunning: I hope my hon. friend
will not press me to give the assurance that a thirty-five per cent tariff on the item will necessarily be fixed. Parliament must be free to deal with it. The item stands at thirty-five per cent. That is an unreasonable assurance to ask for.


Mr. DEACHMAN:: The assurance which the hon. member for Haldimand desires exists in the record of the industry between 1935 and 1936. Production went up nearly $6,000,000, which is a greater increase than was ever made in any year of Canadian history under a Conservative administration.


Frank Exton Lennard: The minister gave the
total imports of socks and stockings, but he did not give the total value of imports of knitted garments under item ex 568.
27, 1939	2295
Canada-United States Trade Agreement


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, I did. That was the first item I gave.


Frank Exton Lennard: The minister gave imports from the United States and the United Kingdom.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. member would
like to have them from all countries? From all countries they were valued at $857,000, and that figure includes the two figures I have already given separately with respect to the United States and the United Kingdom. Total imports were about one per cent of our own production.


Mr. McNIVEN:: It is frequently stated
that platforms advanced by political parties are made to get in on but not to stand on. In that regard it will be recalled that during the 1935 election campaign the present Prime Minister stated the Liberal party, if returned to power, would progressively proceed towards lower tariffs and greater freedom of trade.


An hon. MEMBER:: Increased taxation.


Donald Alexander McNiven: It is known as a fact
that what is popularly described as the Dunning budget of 1930 was the lowest schedule of tariff rates ever adopted in this country. The rejection of that budget was one of the outstanding mistakes made in the history of Canada. During the 1935 campaign it was stated that in the years to come progress would be made towards the level of the Dunning budget. For those who have misgivings that political parties make promises and then forget them, I shall place on Hansard a summary of what has been accomplished in the last four years.


Frank Exton Lennard: Give all the promises
first.


Donald Alexander McNiven: I shall deal with
them seriatim. With respect to textiles, dealing particularly with the period between May, 1930, and January, 1939, the rates of duty applicable to-day are lower on 75 items than they were in 1930. They are the same on 31 items, slightly higher on 38 items, and uncertain or doubtful on 12 items. This covers a total of 156 items and subitems, and governs importations from the United States. The same story is applicable to importations from the United Kingdom. The rates of duty on textiles imported from the United Kingdom to-day are lower on 36 items. On 86 items they are the same to-day as they were under the Dunning budget. They are higher or slightly higher on 24 items, and are doubtful on some 10 items, making a
2296	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
total of 156 items and subitems. I submit, that is a remarkable accomplishment. Coming from western Canada and speaking on behalf of the consumers and users of textiles in my constituency, I want to convey to the government our appreciation of what they have accomplished in so short a time. While I have the greatest respect for the hon. member for Haldimand, I sincerely hope, and I think other hon. members on the government side will join me, that the minister will not listen to his request that the tariff rate on textiles be allowed to remain stationary at thirty-five per cent. Rather we should make greater progress toward reducing the duties on these very necessary articles.


Mr. BROWN:: Is the lowest price one
pays for an article the greatest factor in the hon. member's economy?


Donald Alexander McNiven: The lowest price consistent with qualit3', considering what it is to be used for and the employment entailed in its production. For the last three years I have listened to hon. gentlemen here, all good friends of mine, berating the government for the reductions which have been made in the tariff, and commenting upon the results as regards employment or unemployment. I think it is generally conceded that tariff rates in this country were never as high as they were following the session of 1930. They continued at practically that level during the whole period of the Bennett regime, and there never was a time in the history of this country when unemployment was so prevalent. During that period we were told that there were no markets, that our commodities could not find their way into the markets of the world.


An hon. MEMBER:: They could not blast their way in.


Donald Alexander McNiven: That was the expression used. The Prime Minister accepted that challenge by negotiating the trade agreement of 1935, and the trade of this country has improved year by year from that time on, showing substantial increases in our balance of trade.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And employment too?


Donald Alexander McNiven: Hon. members seem to be much concerned about jobs. The other day an hon. member said that the industries of this country did not give any consideration to the welfare of their employees after they had furnished them with jobs. There are many outstanding exceptions to that statement. I mention one firm located in the city represented by my hon. friend, the International rMr. McNiven.]
Harvester Company of Hamilton. That company is an outstanding example of right relationships between employer and employee.


The CHAIRMAN:: I ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the item before the committee.


Donald Alexander McNiven: I should like to develop that point. However, I shall conclude by expressing, on behalf of the people throughout this country, appreciation of what has been accomplished in a very short time by the government in the way of substantial reductions in duties.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: Let us get back to the textile business for a moment. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat has said that from 1930 to 1935, during which time Mr. Bennett was Prime Minister, the tariff was higher than in any other period in our history. Let me say that during that time textiles sold cheaper in Canada than they had at any other time over a period of twenty-five years.


Malcolm McLean: So did everything else that was produced in Canada.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: There was a world depression on at that time, but Canada did not suffer as severely as many other countries. Many hon. gentlemen attempt to make it appear that the tariff is paid by the consumer, that when you raise the tariff, up goes the price of goods. That is untrue.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who pays it?


Thomas Alfred Thompson: When the tariff on textiles was raised between 1930 and 1935. textiles sold in Canada cheaper than they had sold in twenty-five years.


Malcolm McLean: And everything else sold cheaper.


Mr. TUCKER:: No. 1 wheat sold for 19 cents a bushel.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: We hear too much about wheat; we are talking about textiles just now. During the depression the textile mills in the small towns of Ontario and Quebec were the salvation of the country; they kept people at work. But to-day the great majority of these mills are not running more than half time. This tariff is going to give them another blow, and it is not reducing -the price of textiles to the consumer.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-569e, ex 613 and ex 618. Miners' safety helmets for use exclusively in mining operations, firemen's helmets and sandblast helmets, of a class or kind not made in Canada; parts of such helmets: free.
Item agreed to.

Canada-United Stales Trade Agreement
Customs tariff-572. Oriental and imitation oriental rugs or carpets and carpeting, carpets and rugs, n.o.p.: 30 per cent and 71 cents per square foot.
Albert A. Brown: What are the imports under this item?


Charles Avery Dunning: The imports from the
United States were worth $44,000, while our own production was valued at about $3,800,000. It will be understood of course that the United States is not our principal source of supply for rugs. Our total imports of rugs, including oriental rugs, last year amounted to 2,390,000 square feet, valued at $937,000.


Albert A. Brown: What was the value of importations from Japan?


Charles Avery Dunning: We have no separate record for Japan, but I doubt if there is anything of any consequence from that country.


Robert John Deachman: What is the combined specific and ad valorem rate?


Charles Avery Dunning: If we take the ad valorem equivalent as applied last year on the small importations from the United States, which is the only way I can properly answer the question, the former compound duty or the equivalent is well over 100 per cent ad valorem. On orientals and hand woven rugs the old duty was around 50 per cent ad valorem.


Robert John Deachman: Now it is over 50 per cent. Does that apply to the 35 per cent plus 15 cents?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is right.


Robert John Deachman: So the reduction would not be very material.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is 7^ cents per square foot. Of course, it depends entirely on the value of the rug. There is a five per cent reduction in the ad valorem, and the specific duty per square foot is cut in half.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-ex 573. Linoleum, floor oilcloth, and cork matting or carpets: 30 per cent.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-578. Regalia, badges and belts of all kinds, n.o.p.: 30 per cent.
Albert A. Brown: Does this item cover military uniforms? Would it cover kilts?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Do not put a duty on them.


Charles Avery Dunning: The details I have here do not include military uniforms, which would come in under the woollen cloth items.


Albert A. Brown: My understanding was that various articles of military uniforms have to be purchased abroad, and the men who are devoting their services to their country have to pay duty on certain service requirements which they have to purchase.


James Lorimer Ilsley: On that point I had a good deal of correspondence with applicants for remission of duty. I do not think it is correct to say that the uniforms have to be purchased abroad. Some highland uniforms can be purchased in this country only at very great expense to the purchaser, but that is not true of other uniforms. As a matter of fact, where the cost is very great, we sometimes by order in council remit the duty on highland uniforms, but we have to be very careful in doing that because it would nullify the tariff entirely if we did it freely.


Albert A. Brown: How about the military boots the officers wear?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not remember the allegation ever having been made that the boots could not be bought in Canada.


Mr. STIRLING:: The allegation is certainly made with regard to the gold lace that is required for all three services. Is it manufactured anywhere in Canada? It is customary to import it from the old country and pay the duty on it.


Charles Avery Dunning: Gold lace comes principally from the United Kingdom.


Grote Stirling: And duty is charged on it although it is a de rigueur requirement in the service.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not know under what items it would come in if not under manufactures of gold.


Albert A. Brown: What specific articles would be covered by the word "regalia"?


Charles Avery Dunning: As a privy councillor I would say it applies to a privy councillor's uniform. It would include badges, lodge regalia, rosettes, buttons and that sort of thing. Belts include sanitary belts and aprons and body belts.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-584. Bone pitch, crude only; and resin or rosin in packages of not less than 100 pounds: free.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-585. Coal and pine pitch, burgundy pitch; and coal and pine tar, crude, in packages of not less than fifteen gallons: free.
Item agreed to.
2298	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
Customs tariff-586. Coal, anthracite, n.o.p.: 50 cents per ton.
Mr. BROOKS:: This is an item which interests coal producers throughout Canada, but mainly in Nova Scotia and Alberta. I feel that the coal industry needs as much protection as any other industry, just as much as the wheat industry or the textile industry, of which we have heard so much. While the wheat industry may not be directly protected, it is indirectly protected most substantially so far as this country is concerned.
In my constituency there is a small mining centre at Minto, where the miners have been out of work for a considerable period over the last few years. Over in Nova Scotia, as hon. members from that province well know, the miners of Cape Breton and other parts of the province have been on part time most of this winter, as they were during last summer and for some time prior to that. This all indicates that the industry in Canada can probably produce enough coal, of the bituminous kind at least, to satisfy the Canadian market. I know, that geography is rather against the selling of our coal in the central provinces, and perhaps in the west, but the figures indicate that if we wish to protect our own industries and give employment to our own men we need a more substantial duty on coal than we have at present. While the duty on coal has not been lowered, but remains at 75 cents under item 588-


Charles Avery Dunning: Would not my hon. friend's remarks apply more directly to item 5S8?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I am speaking of coal in general.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no coal in general.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Well, I am speaking of coal.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is a very important difference.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: In any event there is no reduction or increase under item 586. It remains the same. But there is virtually a decrease in the duty by reason of the removal of the excise tax of three per cent.
To show that the present duty has not been adequate, all we need to do is to look at the importations of coal in 1937 and 1938. We imported in 1937, 16,023,147 tons of coal, and in 1938, 14,213,904 tons. The Canadian production of coal in 1937 was 15,835.000 tons, and in 1938, 14,233,000 tons. In other words, we imported practically the same quantity that we produced. My point is that if we produced our own requirements in Canada, or rMr. Dunning.]
even a large percentage, the miners in the coal mining areas of this country would be given substantial employment.
With respect to anthracite coal, our importations in 1937 amounted to the value of
S10,106,000,	and if the same amount were imported this year, with the three per cent excise tax taken off, if and when it is taken off, the revenue lost to the country would be $303,180. That tax is in itself a duty giving some protection to the industry. In 1937 the three per cent excise tax on importations of $20,000,000 worth of bituminous coal represented $600,000 of protection to our coal miners.
As I said before, the present duty is wholly inadequate to protect the coal mining industry. We hear a great deal said about the wheat industry, the textile industry and other industries, but no industry in this country is suffering more to-day than the coal mining industry. No other industry requires more assistance or more protection.
I have another question to ask which affects the coal bonus. Under article XV, I understand it is a matter for representation between the two governments. A bonus was given the coal miners in November, 1938. Have any representations been made 'by the department at Washington with reference to a conference in connection with that bonus?


Charles Avery Dunning: There have been no formal representations in that regard.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Have there been representations of any kind? I do not understand what "formal representations" means.


Charles Avery Dunning: If representations are not formal, then from my point of view there aren't any. I use the word " formal " for this reason. It is well known that the United States is very anxious that Canada should sit down with her and consider the coal question as a whole, without reference to our bonus system, except as it might relate to the whole coal situation, and we have expressed our willingness at any time to join in discussions in that respect. I did not wish to convey the impression, however, that these discussions had reference to any protest that might be contemplated by article XV. That is why I said that no formal representations had been made.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Are we paying a bonus to the coal producers at the present time?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. There is a subvention on the movement of coal. My hon. friend should raise that question on the estimates of the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources. That department handles the subventions.

Canada-United States Trade Agreement


John Ritchie MacNicol: What quantity of anthracite did we import last year from the United States, and how much came in from Wales?


Charles Avery Dunning: Our total imports were 3,594,000 tons, of which 1,112,000 tons came from the United Kingdom and 2,013,000 tons came from the United States. That is of anthracite only.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Was there any from
Germany?


Charles Avery Dunning: From Germany, 262,000 tons.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Was that direct from Germany, or mixed with Welsh coal?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is shown as an import from Germany direct.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have a word to say, not to detract from what was said by the hon. member for Royal, because I wish to endorse all that he said in reference to anthracite coal; but knowing how the minister has been pressed to reduce the duty on coal, I for one am pleased that it was not made lower than it is. There is not much that I can compliment the minister upon in this treaty, but I can compliment him on not reducing the present rate on item 586.	.


Charles Avery Dunning: Does my hon. friend suggest that the duty ought to 'be increased?


John Ritchie MacNicol: No. I know that the minister has been pressed very strongly to put coal on the free list, because when I was in Wales a news item was shown me with regard to a delegation that had appeared asking that anthracite from the United States be placed on the free list, and as a Canadian I am pleased that the minister did not fall for the wiles of the delegation but maintained the duty. It may not be high enough, as the hon. member for Royal says, but I am glad it is not lower than it is.


Charles Avery Dunning: I merely wanted to find out how many supporters there would be in the house for the suggestion of the member for Royal that the duty on coal should be increased.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I said I endorsed what the hon. member said, and I am pleased that the minister did not fall for the wiles of the delegation that asked that the duty be further reduced.


Charles Avery Dunning: I understand the hon.
member for Davenport would like to see the duty increased?


John Ritchie MacNicol: No; I did not say that at all. I cannot allow the minister to put
words in my mouth. I am complimenting the minister on not reducing the duty lower than it is.


Charles Avery Dunning: But my hon. friend also said that he was supporting the hon. member for Royal, who certainly expressed the view that the duty on coal ought to be increased.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I merely said I endorsed the views of my hon. friend in advocating more production of coal in Canada, but that was not what I got up to say. I rose to say that I am glad the minister did not reduce the duty further. I have been very quiet-


Charles Avery Dunning: You	have	been very
good.


John Ritchie MacNicol: -because I know the utter uselessness of saying anything.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I was not speaking about anthracite particularly. The minister mentioned the duty on anthracite.


Charles Avery Dunning: We	shall	be dealing
with' bituminous in a moment.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I was speaking of coal in general. The attitude of my good friend from Toronto and of members from the west would indicate how difficult it is in this country to satisfy everybody. The west wants one thing, central Canada wants its manufacturers protected, and we in the maritimes want protection which we cannot get.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It	seems	there is a
misunderstanding of what I said. We do not produce anthracite in Canada; am I right?


Charles Avery Dunning: Quite.


John Ritchie MacNicol: We import all our
anthracite. I got up to say, and I say it again, that I am glad the duty on anthracite was not made lower than it is, principally because of my desire that we continue to import anthracite coal from Wales to help the Welsh miners. I did not mention bituminous coal.


Mr. KENNEDY:: What is the tariff on
coal going into the United States?


Charles Avery Dunning: Anthracite entering the United States is free; but we have none to sell them, so it makes no difference to us.


Orvis A. Kennedy: Is there no anthracite exported from Canada?


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no anthracite exported because we have no anthracite production. Bituminous presents an entirely different picture, and that is why I was anxious for the member for Royal to wait until that item came up. Coal is not merely
2300	COMMONS
Canada-United, States Trade Agreement
coal; it is lignite, bituminous or anthracite, and there is a great difference in the treatment of the subject, depending on which you are speaking of.


Donald Alexander McNiven: There is a large importation of coal from both the United States and Wales. Into what parts of Canada is that coal imported?


Charles Avery Dunning: The anthracite imported from Wales and from the United States is consumed principally in central Canada. There may be a few maritimers so-what shall I say? The hon. member for Royal can supply the adjective-at any rate, there may be a few maritimers who bum anthracite, but not many.


Joseph Henry Harris: There is a large available exportable surplus in China as well as Russia. Is there any movement into Canada from China and Russia?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have no record of
imports of anthracite from China. From Russia we imported 146,000 tons last year, and from French Indo-China, 50,000 tons.


Joseph Henry Harris: Yes, French Indo-China is what I meant. Is that importation increasing?


Charles Avery Dunning: A slight increase from
French Indo-China, from 34,000 tons to 50.000 tons.


Joseph Henry Harris: What kind of coal?


Charles Avery Dunning: Anthracite.


Joseph Henry Harris: That is a broad term. Is it not the small size, what is called in this country blower coal, something of which the consumption is expanding by leaps and bounds? This importation threatens seriously the product from the screening of larger sizes of anthracite at present imported in such great quantities from the United States. I should like to reiterate what the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) said a few minutes ago; this is another example in which the tariff for revenue that produced $303,000 last year on this article is not going to pour that sum into the treasury in 1939 when the excise tax comes off.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, it will go to the consumers of anthracite coal in this country.


Joseph Henry Harris: The dealers may raise the price.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What is the price of coal from Germany and Russia laid down at Montreal ?


Charles Avery Dunning: I can give only the quantities and the customs valuation.
Tons Valued at
From Russia	
146,000	$ 344,000From Germany	
262,000	1,102,000From French Indo-China..	50,000	130,000
They vary very much.


Abraham Albert Heaps: And Welsh coal?


Charles Avery Dunning: Coal from the United Kingdom works out at just about $5 a ton value for duty.


Mr. HANSELL:: The hon. member for
Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) asked a question concerning subventions. I recognize that this subject comes under another item, but it is a little difficult to separate the subventions from the tariff, because both added together form the protection for the coal industry. Could the minister tell us the particular reason for the increase in the subventions on Nova Scotia coal last fall? I do not want to be misunderstood: my question is not a dog-in-the-manger question. We all know that the coal mining industry in Nova Scotia needs as much protection as possible; the plight of the miner in Nova Scotia is very serious. The situation is just as serious in Alberta., I am wondering why the subvention was increased in the one case and not in the other.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am sorry I cannot
answer 'that question. I have here all information relating to the trade treaty, but I have not the information from the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) with respect to the vote of this parliament for coal movement subsidies. I think my hon. friend will have to ask that question at the proper time.


Ernest George Hansell: What does the total protection amount to, including subventions and tariff, on Nova Scotia coal and Alberta coal?


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not see how anyone could calculate that, because the subventions are for the movement of coal into specific areas.


Ernest George Hansell: But the subvention is based on so much a ton, is it not?


Charles Avery Dunning: So much per ton mile. It differs with every delivery.


Ernest George Hansell: This subject is indeed a very large one, and I suppose that in years gone by everything that could possibly be said on it has alreadj' been said in this house. But the coal problem of this country is not yet solved. We are importing 14.000.000 or
15,000,000 tons of coal every year, and as a result our own coal mining industry is almost

Canada-United, States Trade Agreement
on the rocks. An hon. member the other day, when dealing with the automobile industry, discussed the question as to what eastern interests could buy from western Canada, because western Canada was buying automobiles from eastern Canada. I rather scratched my head and asked myself-


An hon. MEMBER:: Be careful of the few remaining hairs.


Ernest George Hansell: There are not many, but it is said one cannot grow hair and brains in the same place. So far as I can see, there is not much that the east can take from the west except coal, but they could take coal if there were a little reciprocal arrangement. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) the other day made a good suggestion, if it were a practicable one, in connection with the solution of the unemployment problem; he said that industry itself had to play its part. I believe that is so; industry can survive only as people have money to buy its products. I would suggest something to the industries of eastern Canada. I suggest that they check themselves up in regard to what coal they burn.
Let me give hon. members the picture I have in mind. My alarm clock goes off in the morning; I get out of bed to turn off the alarm. I am angry with that clock when it goes off; I look at the face and see that it is manufactured in Hamilton, Ontario. We in the west are buying clocks made in the east.


Mr. McCULLOCH:: Is the hon. member talking about anthracite coal?


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. The hon. member must confine his remarks to coal.


Ernest George Hansell: That is to be my next sentence.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is all right; he wants to trade some bituminous coal for alarm clocks, but we are not on bituminous coal.


Ernest George Hansell: I know that, but there are several items here that for purposes of discussion might all be rolled into one. I am wondering whether that clock company burns Canadian coal in connection with the manufacture of these clocks. They expect us to buy their clocks; let them buy our coal. I have a list of commodities I buy. I buy my wife some toilet articles; I find they are manufactured in eastern Canada; then I wonder if that company burns Canadian coal. I could go through all the list of manufactured articles. I do not suppose statistics are available. I did think on one occasion I would take time to write to these manufacturing concerns and ask
them plainly what kind of coal they burn. Our Liberal friends believe in reciprocity, and reciprocal agreements between Canada and other countries; why not a little reciprocity between east and west? That would facilitate matters a good deal.
I should like to read something at this point, and perhaps the minister can say whether this is a feasible solution of the problem. I am reading this from a submission that was made to the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations. I do not know if it is word for word, but it is the sum and substance of the recommendation.


Charles Avery Dunning: Whose submission is it?


Ernest George Hansell: It is the recommendation of the national coal committee and the Western Canada fuel association, of Calgary and Winnipeg respectively, prepared under the direction of L. R. Lipsitt, K.C., LL.D., O.B.E.
The recommendation made as to how this can be accomplished-
That is, the solution of the coal problem.
-is that all importations of coal should be forthwith taken under the control of the dominion government by legislation, and that all future importations of American coal should be made under government permit. Approximately 1,000,000 tons of Canadian coal go into the United States annually as against over 14,000,000 tons imported from the States last year. As a matter of permanent policy the States might be given permits to send into Canada ton for ton against what they take from us. As regards all further importations of American coal, they should come in under a quota to be fixed annually, such quota getting less each year as the market adapted itself to Canadian coal and supplies became available, until eventually the Canadian market was reserved exclusively for Canadian coal. The Dominion Fuel Board might well be given extended powers and be asked to assist in working out the policy indicated.
If the carrying out of this policy were spread over a short period of years, eastern industries and eastern householders would be able gradually to adapt themselves to the use of Canadian coal as replacements in equipment were made, and as they gradually became accustomed to the best methods of burning Canadian coal. . . .
In negotiations with our friends across the border, no objection in principle can be taken to the permit and quota system above suggested. It has been put in force by the American government in relation to Canadian cattle going into the States. It has been put in force by Britain in reference to the acceptance of Canadian bacon and other agricultural products. It is not subject to the same objections, during the pending trade negotiations, that would be urged against any increase in existing tariffs. Coal is actually to-day the subject of an agreement permitting the entry into the Irish Free State of British coal, in exchange for permission to send Irish cattle into the British markets. This agreement has been renewed recently, showing the satisfactory results secured by both parties under the original agreement.
2302	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
If the permit and quota system were once in force, it would give the Canadian government an enormous bargaining factor to secure entry into the States of larger quantities of Canadian cattle, lumber, manufactured goods, and agricultural products. It is quite evident that the importation of American coal could not and would not be stopped at once, but the Canadian government would have immediately this valuable bargaining counter in their hands, in addition to such bargaining powers as already exist.
With a gradual change over, little inconvenience or loss would be sustained by eastern interests and any such loss would be far less than the millions that have been and still are being lost, through the inability of western governments, municipalities and individuals to meet their contractual obligations.
That is the sum and substance of the recommendation of the western coal interests.


Charles Avery Dunning: Does that come from the industry?


Ernest George Hansell: It comes from the national coal committee and the Western Canada fuel association who, combined, represent the coal industry in western Canada. .


Charles Avery Dunning: And is my hon. friend ready to indicate his support of the proposals therein contained?


Ernest George Hansell: I think the coal problem of this country must be dealt with on a broad, national basis. Some system or another, looking at the whole matter with a view to bringing about a broad national policy, should do something to solve that problem. The coal mining industry itself, apart from the workers, is running on a very thin string, so to speak.


Charles Avery Dunning: Does my hon. friend
regard that recommendation which he has just spread upon Hansard as a broad, national solution of this problem?


Ernest George Hansell: I think it is. I do not
see anything wrong with it.


Charles Avery Dunning: I hope all hon. members will read and study it. It is worth studying.


Ernest George Hansell: I agree with the minister that it is worth studying, and I also agree that governments	in the past	have
studied these same things. I am quite certain that they are conscious of the results of quota systems, and that is why I wonder if the minister would care to express himself along this line. We from Alberta, in common with those from other parts of the country, are interested in the solution of the problem itself, and if we can offer any suggestions one way or another, surely some good may come out of them.


Mr. HOWDEN:: I do not know the position of coal now, but some ten or twelve years ago when I entered this house it was a burning topic. An investigation was held at that time, and it was found that western coal could not be brought east of Winnipeg, or at least east of Redditt, which is about 125 or 140 miles this side of Winnipeg. In the same way coal from the maritime provinces could not be taken west of Toronto. The railways are a pretty good criterion to go by. The Canadian National have not endeavoured to bring western coal east of Redditt, while I think the Canadian Pacific brings its western coal as far east as Kenora.
At that time western coal was enjoying a subvention of $2.07 a ton in order to permit it to sell in the Ontario market in competition with Pennsylvania coal, which then sold at about $11 a ton. Well, $2.07 is a pretty big subvention; it is fairly high protection to pay for the privilege of marketing western coal in Ontario, and in saying that I am as much a Canadian as anyone. I believe there have been a number of very, very serious investigations into this coal question, which is not a new matter by any means. They always wind up just where we are now. These days coal is brought in from the old country, Germany and other places, as we have been told, when it is found advantageous to do so, and I believe we are getting our Canadian coal on the market to the best possible advantage at the present time. It seems that all the investigations we have had so far have come to that conclusion.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: I understood the
minister to say a few minutes ago that Welsh coal cost $5 a ton or thereabouts, laid down in Canada.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the value for duty in Wales.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: And some coals from other countries were even less than that. Can the minister explain why coal coming in here worth $5 a ton costs the consumers $15 or $16? I paid $16 a ton for the coal I put in my bin last fall.


Mr. GOLDING:: You paid too much.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: I could not get it for less.


Charles Avery Dunning: The value for duty is the value in Wales. It has to be transported to my hon. friend's coal bin, I suppose, before it costs him $16 a ton.


Ernest George Hansell: I agree with much but not with all of what has been said by the hon. member for St. Boniface. I think even the coal mining industry would admit that they
[Mr. HanselU

Canada-United States Trade Agreement
are fairly well protected. The subvention, together with the tariff, does protect the industry. But in spite of the protection they receive, 15,000,000 tons of coal come into Canada. If the western interests could sell just a million more tons in eastern Canada they would be on their feet, and thousands of miners would be employed. For the moment I am not concerned with the quota system. But if the purchase of a million tons were transferred from the United States to Alberta I 'believe the mining industry of the republic to the south of us would not be greatly affected, and it would put our industry on its feet.
I wish to refute the hon. member's statement to the effect that western coal brought to eastern Canada was not satisfactory.


John Power Howden: I did not say the coal was not satisfactory. One of the difficulties found in bringing western coal to eastern Canada was that there was a tendency for the coal to break up and to form slack. In many instances when it reached eastern Canada it was not satisfactory because, unless protected, in a very short time it lost its form.


Mr. McIVOR:: There is another side to this matter. We at the head of the lakes think that there is too much duty and too much subvention, and that this condition has brought about unemployment at the head of the lakes. We shall be looking for the same subvention and bounty on iron ore, and we believe we have just as much right to it as the coal people.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: We must remember that 15,000,000 or 16,000,000 tons of coal come to Canada every year. The large manufacturing plants in Ontario and Quebec, plants such as the Steel Company of Canada and the International Nickel Company use large quantities of coal. Large amounts are consumed by greenhouses, and producers of that kind. I would point out to hon. members from the west who are so critical of the desire on the part of eastern people to preserve our manufacturing institutions, that in some instances we have to pay seventy-five cents a ton and in other instances, SI. The actual amount of money paid by Ontario and Quebec is very large. I believe it is an expenditure which we are willing to pay, in order that the western and eastern parts of Canada may prosper, and in order that they may produce and sell larger quantities of coal.


Albert A. Brown: Very often in the house I have heard the suggestion that lower prices are of paramount importance, that in fact they are more important than national economy or national development. As a representative from an' industrial constituency I 71492-145
would say that I would do all in my power to induce industries to buy western and eastern coal. I have always said that if the government would spend more time and energy in the development of internal trade, trade among the eastern, western and central provinces, it would be doing much more for the country than it can do by giving concessions to the United States, and to other nations which are competing unfairly. If competition were on a favourable basis one might think differently, but the fact is that only one or two nations of the world are competing with us on an actual cost basis. Most nations are competing- on a subsidized basis. A short time ago we heard that subsidized wheat had been unloaded on the Ontario markets. I believe it was the hon. member for Wentworth who showed that shoes from Czechoslovakia were selling for eleven cents a pair in Hamilton stores.


Malcolm McLean: Shoes and anthracite.


Albert A. Brown: I am drawing analogies between various articles.


Charles Avery Dunning: Looking at it from the point of view of coal, would the hon. member be prepared to have the duty high enough against United States coal to make it more profitable for an industrialist to buy coal supplies from the maritimes or from Alberta? Will the hon. member face up to that?


Albert A. Brown: If the country as a whole would derive benefit from it, yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is what we have to consider. If we are to apply the principle that we should use Canadian coal, and if we decide that we shall use it through the operation of the tariff, in the same manner as the tariff is operated in connection with other products, then we must face putting on a duty which would compel industrial plants in central Canada to buy Alberta or maritime coal. That duty on bituminous coal would have to be not seventy-five cents a ton as it is to-day, but I venture to say at least S3 or S3.50 a ton.
I like to look at these matters squarely. Would that be a good thing for Canada? Hon. members who are coal consumers say, No, it would not-and that is what the rest of us say, with respect to their manufactures. That is the difficulty in connection with devising a tariff policy which can be applied generally across the country.


Albert A. Brown: In connection with our railways and other matters we have to pay a price in order to bring about unity in Canada.

2304	COMMONS
Canada-United, States Trade Agreement
Unless that price is too high, unless it will hurt the country as a whole, I say we should be willing to pay it.


Orvis A. Kennedy: I was hoping we would reach item 588 because there were one or two observations I wanted to make.


Charles Avery Dunning: I wonder if we could not pass this item and the next one and have the discussion on item 588?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-587. Coke, n.o.p.: $1 per ton.
Item agreed to.
Customs tariff-588. Coal, n.o.p., including screenings and coal dust of all kinds: 75 cents per ton.
Charles Avery Dunning: Now we are on bituminous coal.


Orvis A. Kennedy: Several arguments have been advanced for protection, and I do not think we in Alberta are particularly advocating the raising of the tariff in order to force industry in eastern Canada to pay a higher price for coal. If coal from Alberta or Nova Scotia is to be brought to Ontario, it will have to be by increasing the subventions.


Charles Avery Dunning: Who pays those?
Mr. KENNEDY': There are several thousand coal miners on relief in Alberta, and I believe there are many in Nova Scotia in the same position. If the dominion government would apply what they pay for relief in Alberta toward increasing the subventions on coal, the eastern industrialists would not have to pay more. A large part of the relief now being paid in Alberta could be eliminated by increasing the subventions. I believe this would cure much of the relief and unemployment situation in Alberta. We have about 13,500 miners in Alberta who hold certificates to mine coal, and only about 5,000 of them are working. Eight thousand coal miners in Alberta are on relief. If these men could be put to work, it would go a long way toward curing the relief situation in that province.


Charles Avery Dunning: As I indicated, I am not in a position to discuss subventions when we are dealing with this trade treaty. That is the business of the Minister of Mines and Resources, and I am quite sure that when that item in his estimates comes up, there will be, as there has always been, a very complete discussion. May I suggest to hon. members that it would be better to have this discussion at a time and place at which it would be effective.


Orvis A. Kennedy: I agree with the minister. I made my remarks because of the argument which had been advanced for protection. I wanted to place myself on record as not advocating higher rates of duties in order to embarrass the eastern industrialist by making him pay more for his coal. The quality of Alberta coal has been brought into this discussion, and I should like to refute what has been said against it. The coal which came to Ontario a few years ago was not' the best quality of coal that we have in Alberta. It was taken from the lignite fields and we all know that lignite has a greater percentage of water in it. I understand it runs about sixty heat units to forty per cent water, whereas we have coal in Alberta which runs as high as ninety-six heat units to four per cent water. If the latter type of coal were sent to Ontario, there would be very little crumbling.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The Alberta government sent it.


Orvis A. Kennedy: Here is another significant point. The freight rate on coal coming to this province is about $8 a ton. A subvention of $2.50 a ton would bring that rate down to $5.50. Wheat can be brought east for $5.20 a ton.


Charles Avery Dunning: This has nothing to do with coal coming from the United States, which is what is covered by this item.


Orvis A. Kennedy: I was simply replying to the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Mac-Nicol).


John Ritchie MacNicol: I was not finding any fault with Alberta coal; in fact I have used it myself. All I said was that the Alberta government had shipped the coal which was sent to Ontario. If they did not ship us the best coal, that is not our fault.


Orvis A. Kennedy: The Alberta government did not ship it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I understand the Ontario government put up about $25,000 in order to try out Alberta coal.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: When was that?


John Ritchie MacNicol: When Mr. Howard
Ferguson was premier. I used the coal myself and I found it very good. I do not know why they stopped shipping it to Ontario.


Charles Avery Dunning: This whole discussion is out of order.


Frederick George Sanderson: I ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the item.

Canada-United States Trade Agreement


Orvis A. Kennedy: There is one way in which Ontario could use Alberta coal. Factories in Ontario could buy the equipment with which to use the small sizes of coal very cheaply. If the coal slacks on the way down and becomes small coal or screenings, it could be burned in Ontario factories at small cost and the lump sizes left for domestic use. I should like to point out that Alberta has twenty-one per cent of the known coal supply of the North American continent, and yet we send to Ontario only one-fifteenth of the coal consumed here. Alberta has eighty-seven per cent of the total coal supply of the Dominion of Canada, and yet we are unable to supply the Ontario market. This is a national problem. I hope to discuss the matter of freight rates with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) when we are dealing with subventions on coal. I mentioned during the budget debate last year that there are sufficient coal reserves in Canada to supply the country for 36,000 years. There is no reason why we should have to import one ton of coal from the United States. Our internal economy should be such as to make coal from the east and the west readily available in Ontario.


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Kennedy) had to deal at the moment with the decomposition of Alberta coal because the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden) had raised the question. There is another matter I should like to mention because I am not quite sure that it will be in order when we are discussing subventions. I refer to the possible readjustment of freight rates.


Charles Avery Dunning: That would be in order when we are dealing with subventions or on any of the estimate items of the Minister of Transport.


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) pointed out the possibility of getting control of coal imports, and the minister asked if he favoured that proposal. That put the hon. member in a rather difficult position. There are many factors that would enter into this question. An arrangement could be made with the railroads to reduce the freight rates on coal and enable Alberta coal to be placed in the Ontario market without loss to the Ontario people and with great profit to Alberta.


William Daum Euler: Who would pay the deficits of the railroads?
Mr. McLEAN (Melfort); It seems to me that hon. members are blaming the Creator for placing so much coal so far away from 71492-1455
where it is needed. What my hon. friend says about the quality of Alberta coal is true. This coal is the finest domestic coal one can find, but it is so far away. If it is to be brought down to eastern Ontario all rail, it will be tremendously expensive. If it is brought by rail to the head of the lakes and then dumped into a ship, it will be broken up and not be as good a fuel from the domestic point of view. If the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Kennedy) will look up the records of the special committee which studied this matter, I think in 1926, he will find much useful information. The hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) and the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Brown) have advocated a greater use of Canadian coal, but the hon. member for Hamilton East in particular overlooks the fact that there are thousands of miles between where the coal is located and where it is to be consumed. If we must pay subsidies, subventions or duties to move this coal, it simply means that there will be a tremendous added cost to the cost of the goods turned out by industry. I am quite sure that the industry he represents would not be willing to pay the cost from the Crowsnest pass-


Albert A. Brown: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Malcolm McLean: Certainly.


Albert A. Brown: We are paying a considerable bonus on wheat, and we from the eastern provinces are glad to do it because it contributes to the national development of Canada. B-ut we think we should also do the same thing for coal.


Malcolm McLean: I cannot see
anything of a question in the argument my hon. friend is making. I am beginning to be tired of all this talk about a bonus on wheat when this dominion has not paid a bonus on wheat yet, and is likely to pay the bonus for the first time this year.
To come back to coal, the industry represented by my hon. friend would certainly object-and he would be the first to speak for them-to paying three dollars extra to bring bituminous coal from the Crowsnest pass or the Brazeau fields when it would not serve the purpose as well as the coal they now import cheaply from across the lakes by water and with a short rail haul.


Albert A. Brown: It would help our railways.


Malcolm McLean: But at whose expense? At the expense of the people who claim that .the products of Hamilton industries are already too expensive to be bought
2306	COMMONS
Canada-United, States Trade Agreement
on a parity of value with imported products. It would be at the expense of other parts of Canada. There is a problem in Alberta which cannot be solved by added duties, and it is this: Because of the vast quantity of coal deposits in Alberta, too many people went into the industry, and we have in that industry some eight thousand unemployed to-day. How many unemployed would there be if we encouraged people by some artificial means, by bonus, subvention or tariff, to engage still more deeply in that industry and draw larger quantities of that 36,000 years' supply of which the hon. member for Edmonton East speaks? It is ridiculous. The more you encourage the industry by artificial means, the more capital you induce to invest in the industry in the hope of making more profits, the more unemployment you will have.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is not correct.


Malcolm McLean: My hon. friend is entitled to his opinion, but I am speaking from the history of forty years' of development. There are tremendous quantities of very high grade coal in southern Alberta, but that supply is so far away that to bring it to eastern Ontario would 'be prohibitive to those people who have to buy the output of the industries that would 'be compelled to use that coal at a higher cost. I do not care whether the taxpayers of Canada pay the extra money to the railroads through subventions, tariffs or anything else, but by the time the costs are all pyramided and passed on to the consumers of this country from coast to coast, the products of industry would be just too expensive.


John Horne Blackmore: My hon. friend shows great familiarity with the question. I wonder if he has at his fingers' ends the amount which the railroads say is necessary for moving a ton of Alberta coal to Ontario.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, but I must insist that we discuss this tariff item. I do not care whether we get through with it by six o'clock or not, but if we go all over the place in this fashion we shall never get through the trade treaty.


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member for Melfort raised the point, and unless we have a chance to reply, it stands against us. The minute we begin to answer it, we are out of order. But he was not.


Charles Avery Dunning: He was out of order too.


Malcolm McLean: I kept quiet all afternoon trying to have this item carried, but after hon. gentlemen made their arguments I felt that I could claim my right to do my

share of talking. The railroads have found that it costs much more money, I would say in reply to the hon. member for Lethbridge-


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Chairman, if it was out of order to ask the question, it is out of order to answer it.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Following up the
remarks I made a few moments ago, we find that tariff reductions are made all along the line on manufactured products, and yet the duty on coal remains the same. Let me give one illustration of what the duty costs. A greenhouse just north of Toronto pays in duty on coal alone $9,000 a year. And already the duty on cut flowers has been slashed. I do not think that is a fair deal.


Orvis A. Kennedy: Would the minister give me the information now that I asked for on item 586 with respect to Canadian coal going to the United States? Is the tariff the same?


Charles Avery Dunning: Practically.


Orvis A. Kennedy: On all coal, bituminous as well?


Charles Avery Dunning: Bituminous is free.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, March 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Power for the second reading of Bill No. 6, to amend the Pension Act.
Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: I intend to support the bill as far as it goes because I believe that the pension appeal court has outlived its usefulness. It has discredited itself in the eyes of all returned men's organizations and probably in the eyes of all those people who are familiar with the administration of the Pension Act.
I should like to associate myself with the remarks of previous speakers in asking that the bill be referred to a special committee to investigate certain problems of major importance that are confronting pensioners.

Pension Act Amendment
I intend to deal only with what I consider one of the main problems facing pensioners, namely, the case of the non-pension widow. To-day there are very few people in Canada who realize that when a married pensioner dies, his pension dies with him automatically unless his wife is in the fortunate position of being able to prove to a somewhat hard-boiled medical board that his death was on account of war service, or unless he was receiving an eighty per cent pension; and of course, many years after the close of the war, it is not such an easy matter to prove that death is on account of war service.
To-day we are living in a time of wars and rumours of war, and I suggest that it is high time the government took steps to acknowledge in full the country's obligations to its pensioners. I do not believe that those obligations are being met in full to-day. Should Canada become involved in another war, I know, speaking for myself, if I were told that in the event of my being seriously wounded and, at a later date, dying after the war, my wife would not receive my pension, I would not consider that my country was dealing in an honourable manner with my widow. Any country that would expect men to be willing to sacrifice their lives for it, without unconditionally accepting full responsibility for the care of those men's dependents, is a country in which there is something radically wrong.
I believe the majority of the members of this house have on their files cases of widows who to-day are suffering from a great injustice. I shall refer briefly to one case with which I am familiar. It illustrates very well the injustice that widows are suffering from today. The case is that of a healthy man, a great football player, who enlisted and had his leg blown off. It was amputated at the thigh and he had to undergo several additional operations, which left the stump of the leg in a very sore state so that he was unable to wear an artificial limb. Eventually the weight of his body broke down his other foot so that he could not take proper exercise. Internal diseases followed and finally he died in 1933. Two doctors who attended him both gave evidence that his death was the result of war service. An application for a pension was turned down by the pension board and an appeal was taken to the appeal court. That also was turned down. In 1936 the case was referred to me and I got in touch with the veterans' bureau. We succeeded in getting Doctor Laidlaw, a well-known pathologist in Canada, to take an interest in the case. He submitted evidence to the effect that undoubtedly the man's death was the result of war service. On that evidence we got the appeal court to reopen the case. It was again referred to the pension board, and again a pension was refused.
In the middle of 1938, for some reason or another, somebody, the government or the pension board, had a change of heart and, without a change in the act, that woman was awarded a pension, five years after the death of her husband. In other words, the country had deprived her of her rightful pension for five years. She had been robbed of approximately $3,000 by the government's not acknowledging the fact that a pension was due her. The pension was not made retroactive; that is not possible under the law. There are many similar cases in Canada to-day, and therefore I say that we are not meeting our obligations to the dependents of returned men.
Before the committee that sat in 1936 it was made perfectly clear on many occasions that it was not so much a matter of what a pensioner was entitled to as of what the country could afford to pay. In other words, the country was in a bankrupt state, paying only so many cents on the dollar of its obligation. It was stated in this house by one of its leaders that Canada had been very generous to its returned men. I suggest that when a debtor pays his creditor he is not being generous; he is merely meeting his obligations, and when he does not pay his debt in full he does not meet his obligations. That is the state of Canada to-day in relation to this question. Canada is not meeting its obligations to the dependents of the returned men. To-day, twenty years after the war, we find that we still have many obligations which are left undischarged so far as our returned men are concerned. I therefore add my voice to those of other hon. members in asking that the bill be referred to a special committee to investigate some of the major problems confronting pensioners [DOT] at the present time.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: There are two important changes in this bill, and while most hon. members would like to see the minister bring down a bill with many more changes going further, still it is only fair to say the two changes that are proposed will, in my opinion at any rate, bring about some measure of relief to the returned men. I refer to the change in connection with the appeal court and the extension of time for applications.
In 1936 when the committee met it was proposed to do away with the appeal court; but it seems that the country was not quite
Pension Act Amendment

ready for that move because, although the agitation has been kept up since that time, it is only now that legislation is introduced to do away with the appeal court. I agree with a good deal that has already been said, but I disagree with some of the speakers who are advocating that this bill go before a committee. I had the honour of being on the last committee, and I think I can say correctly that almost every aspect, yes, every aspect, of the returned men's problems was dealt with during the time that committee sat in 1936. Those problems may have become aggravated since that time, but to my mind they are essentially the same as they were then. They may be greater, but they are the same. It seems to me that after the deliberations of that committee and, later, the exhaustive research made by the veterans' assistance commission, the minister and hon. members are very well seized of most if not all of the problems confronting the returned men. I doubt whether there is one phase of the whole soldier problem that cannot be discussed on the floor of the house, either before the bill goes into committee or when it is in committee.
I wish to add my meed of praise to what has been said with respect to the Minister of Pensions (Mr. Power). I think I can say without fear of successful contradiction that he is, if not the most sympathetic, one of the most sympathetic ministers we have had in this house in charge of returned men's problems. No one knows the problems of the returned men better than he does, and I have no apologies to offer for voicing my word of praise of the minister.
I know that we should not at this stage discuss the various clauses of the bill, but I want to speak of one aspect, that of doing away with the appeal court. I believe that some further changes will have to be made, because I find that some aspects of the new set-up would appear to preclude many applicants from getting redress to which I think they are entitled. I have one case before me which is very interesting and might be cited in support of what I have to say as to the need for additional phraseology in the bill to provide that special cases may be given attention. This man, Mr. Gibbs, enlisted in 1916 and served until 1919 in Prance with notably meritorious service. He took ill in 1919 and died in 1921. The doctor who attended him gave it as his considered opinion that this man died from cancer, something he contracted while he was in the army. His widow at the time did not make claim because there was some insurance money coming; but in course of time, after the insurance money had
[Mr. Reid.l
been spent, she appealed to the board of pension commissioners or the tribunal for a pension, and they granted her one. An appeal, however, was taken against the award, and the appeal court reversed the finding and refused pension to the widow.
The strange feature is that the appeal court stated that the whole matter hinged on medical evidence, yet they themselves reversed the award on lay evidence. By that I mean that in 1921 the widow said she noticed this growth on her husband's neck in 1920; then in 1933, when the appeal was up, she said it was 1919 when she noticed the growth. But the sad part is that although the court of appeal stated that the matter hinged on medical evidence, the medical practitioner who gave evidence in the case stated it as his unqualified opinion that the man died as a result of cancer he contracted and had in his body when he returned from overseas. I doubt whether the present bill would touch cases of that kind, unless some proviso is made that a case may be reopened without additional evidence being produced. No new or additional evidence can be produced in a case of that kind, so, without some further provision, this woman will be denied a pension to which I feel she is entitled.
I was pleased when the Minister of Pensions provided hospitalization for non-pensioners. That has been a great advantage, but I should like to see it go a little further. It seems hardly fair that those receiving $20 or $40 a month under war veterans' allowance should have moneys deducted from their allowance during the time they are in hospital. I do not see why they should be called upon to pay, while others receive the benefit freely, and rightly so, of course, if they come under the new regulations.
In passing, I should like to draw the minister's attention to the condition of Shaugh-nessy hospital in Vancouver. The building was built in 1909 and was used as a school before being taken over by the military authorities. I am not going to say it is a fire-trap, but it is old and was never adapted for a military hospital. With the change in regulations there is no doubt there will be additional demand for hospital accommodation in Vancouver for many years to come, and I would ask the minister to give this matter his serious consideration. I understand plans were drawn up for a new building many years ago, but nothing further was done about the matter.
If protests do come mostly from hon. members representing British Columbia, it is hardly to be wondered at, because British Columbia

Pension Act Amendment
has a greater proportion, of returned men in proportion to population, either pensioners or those receiving war veterans' allowance, than any other province. Just before coming to the house to-night I noted some statistics concerning this. I find that in Ontario there are 5,135 in receipt of war veterans' allowance; in British Columbia, 3,512; in Quebec, 1,476; in Manitoba, 1,372; in Alberta, 1,131; in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, 766; in Saskatchewan, 807; and in New Brunswick, 390. So it appears that British Columbia has twenty-seven per cent of the total number in receipt of war veterans' allowances. The same condition applies as to pensions. Out of 79,864 pensioners, Ontario has 27,549; British Columbia, 10,643; Quebec, 5.499; Manitoba, 7,377; Alberta, 5,821; Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, 4,523; Saskatchewan, 4,306; and New Brunswick, 2.162. Those figures I believe prove what I say, that British Columbia is carrying a heavier load, because disabled ex-service men are there in greater numbers. In further support of this statement, the figures given to the minister by the veterans' assistance commission show that when they were proposing economic allowances, which we are still advocating, they gave a total of 4,650 who would be in receipt of such allowances in Ontario, while in British Columbia they estimated the total would be 6,354. When one compares the population of Ontario, almost 3,000,000, with the population of British Columbia, something over 700,000, one realizes that in British Columbia, the problem is greater and more difficult than in any other province. That is why the voice of British Columbia is heard perhaps more vociferously, through its members in this house and the provincial legion organizations, than is the case with other provinces.
Nearly everv speaker has said something regarding the plight of the widows, which hon. members must realize is very serious, and which condition demands that something be done for them. Take the case of a returned man in receipt of a pension of, say $7.50 or $15 a month, with the man and his wife endeavouring to carry on as best they may on this meagre amount. Suddenly the man passes away; the pension is cut off, and how is the widow to carry on for the rest of her days? Heaven only knows. Surely there is some responsibility on this house and this government in regard to these widows, and the plight of ex-service men on relief is even worse. I would urge the minister to give serious consideration to their plight.
I think something should be said with regard to the loyalty of the returned men during
these days of stress. I know some people have laughed at the latest move of the returned men's organizations in proposing to organize in defence of Canada; but to me at least it shows that they are still loyal to Canada, and in my opinion that loyalty is well worth preserving. I may have something further to say when the bill is in committee, but I felt that I should at least say this much, particularly on behalf of the widows and before the bill reaches the committee stage.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, several times in this house I have spoken briefly in support of greater consideration for our returned soldiers. It is my opinion, in which I am becoming more confirmed each year, that Canada is not playing fair with the returned men. I think we are forgetful of the fact that each year our returned men and their wives are getting one year older and consequently one year weaker. I do not think we heed the fact that each year there are actually fewer jobs available in this country. We doctor up our statistics in order to make a rather pleasant appearance on paper, but there is no pleasant appearance to be found when we walk the streets of any of our large cities. Each year we see more young people coming into the labour market to take what jobs are available, and each year it becomes more difficult for a man over forty to obtain a position of any kind. In addition, each year there are fewer markets for the commodities people used to produce and by means of which they were enabled to get by. I recall that twelve years ago, we will say, a person could go into any ordinary little community and milk a few cows, plant a good garden, raise a few strawberries, make butter and so on, and find a sufficient market for those commodities to enable him to get by. Then again, in almost every little community it was possible for people to maintain themselves 'by knitting, sewing, making clothes, doing washings and things of that kind. Many of the widows of fifteen years ago, with the help of their children, were able to carry on in this way; but, sir, to-day it is becoming increasingly difficult to secure a livelihood through these avenues. There is a little dairy, a little milk distributing establishment, in every small town to-day, with someone making a business of it, where fifteen years ago there was no such thing.
I believe we must take cognizance of these matters, for they have an important bearing on this whole question of our returned men and their dependents, especially their widows. I am going to suggest what may seem a little radical, but what I think is only justice. The
Pension Act Amendment

recommendation of the veterans' assistance commission, which was couched in the following words, should be implemented at once, that-
-unemployed indigent veterans with service in a theatre of actual war be taken care of by the dominion government while unemployed, and paid unemployment assistance accordingly.
So far as I know, that recommendation has not yet been implemented; I think it should be attended to without further delay. War widows should receive an allowance forthwith, for the reasons I have already indicated. During the last month I have spoken with at least a dozen war widows who have sat down beside me and in blunt sincerity asked, "What can I do to make a living?" It would challenge the best intelligence of this house to tell them what should be done. Certainly I could not tell them, but those widows had to make a living and they had to educate their children.
I think it is time we laid down the principle that all men who saw service in an actual theatre of war should receive $40 a month, and that on their death their widows should receive the same amount without any questions asked. People may say, "Well, where is the money coming from?" It is not my business to discuss that; probably I would be called to order if I did; but without discussing it at all I am going to point out this fact, that thirty years from to-day everyone will be able to see where the money could have come from, and everyone will wonder what kind of dolts we were that we could not see it also. There is no question about that at all. If a war were to break out within the next two or three days, we would be finding money in abundance in order to kill men. It is high time we found money in abundance in order to save men. Just while I am on that point, if I may digress for a moment, I think it is clearly recognized by all who are prepared to face the facts that it would be impossible for this country to engage in a war of the dimensions of the last war and go into debt for the money necessary to conduct such a war. We would have a structure of debt under which we would be absolutely crushed. Clearly, if war came, a way would have to be found to finance that war without going into debt. Then, undoubtedly that way can be found in order to look after those people who are suffering so terribly.
I do not wish to occupy the time of the house unduly; but for the sake of those who in the future may want to know something about the way in which we did things in these days I should like to put on record, as

an illustration of the suffering which our people are undergoing, a case which has come to my attention. The men who fought and bled and of whom many died for these people, are suffering as this man is suffering to-day. The letter I have in my hand, dated May 31, 1938, is written from Spokane, Washington. I shall quote passages from it, to save time. As a matter of fact, I shall quote from two letters from the same man, one of which was written to me and the other to an official in Alberta. Here are some of his words:
I do not know if you have heard of my misfortune or not, but I have had my right foot amputated. I have had one hearing, and they will give me one more, but I cannot prove that I contracted this Buerger's disease in France. I was in a British hospital in London, but they did not put down all my record, or it has been lost. I was treated for chronic otitis media, trench fever and trench feet. I have suffered ever since I came out of army with my right foot, but did not know what was wrong until last summer. I was to several of the best doctors in Spokane, and they all . said it was Buerger's disease. This disease had been traced back to France. The United States government has a large hospital at Soap Lake near Spokane treating eases like mine, and they are all returned soldiers. Most of these men have had several amputations, and there is no cure for it. This water is used and mud baths stop the disease, but does not cure it. There is no question in the United States government but w h a t, these men got this disease in France, and all draw pensions and hospital treatment. I have sure suffered with this, and still am. My leg is not healed up yet.
Was operated on December 7, 1937. I have never asked for any relief of any kind. Have paid my own bills, but I have been down since I came here three years ago. I moved down here on account of my wife's health. She is not strong. She has had three operations, and she has been working keeping me and my two boys since I came here. But I do not think she will be able to last much longer at the work she has to do.
I wish you would see if you can find any of my records or not. If you cannot see if you can see some of the pensions officers, and maybe you can do something for me. I had Doctor Mulloy treat my foot in 1927 and in 1931, so you can see it has been bothering me for a long time.
Those are some of the quotations. And here are quotations from a letter written by the same man on the same date to an official of the Alberta government. Before I begin reading these passages, I submit they are so pathetic as to be disgraceful to the officials of this dominion. All. we have to do is to put along with what I have read some further things I shall read, to see how pathetic the whole thing really is:
I wrote your Uncle Hugh and received an answer from him, but he could find no record of me. Went to the hospital I was in London

Pension Act Amendment
but all records had been sent to war office. He went to the war office and all Canadian records have been sent to Ottawa. So he could not do me any good.
I have had one hearing in the pension board, and I was turned down on account there was no record of me having anything wrong with my foot. I have suffered ever since I came out of army, but I did not know what was wrong with my foot until last summer, and doctors who examined me told me it was Buerger's disease.
Part of this may be repetition of what I have already read.
But my foot was so far gone they had to amputate it. These doctors I had examine me say I got this in Trance, and I was to some of the best doctors in Spokane.
The next part of the letter is much the same as what I have already read. Then, there is this touching part :
The Red Cross has taken care of me up until now, but don't know what I am going to do now. I know I contracted this _ in France-but try and prove it to those pension men. I don't suppose any of those guys stood in that mud and rain. It is funny any of us fellows have any feet. I stood in mud sixteen days once, and was on duty all that time. Never did have dry feet-and freezing weather.
I know I am sure entitled to some compensation, if any soldier is. I cannot work and my wife is trying to make a living and send our boys to school. She is not very strong. She has had three operations, and I left up there on account of her health. I wish you would do what you can. If you do not think I have suffered with this foot, ask my mother. She knows how long I have been bothered. I went to Doctor Mulloy in 1927 and also in 1931, but he did not know what was wrong.
I was treated a little for trench feet in the hospital, but they have no record. We used to sit with our feet in coal oil. I have seen several of the boys in the ward I was in with toes and parts of their feet just rotting away. I was in a British hospital in England, and I do not think half the records were kept. Three thousand patients in this hospital, so you can see they were busy and maybe some of the records were lost, or not even put on record. Let them read this letter and see if they would like to be a soldier and get the breaks we got.
I am a member of the Canadian legion, and we have a pension office here. And they have helped me and are still working on my case, and all of the legion say I am entitled to it. I have not asked for pension until last fall, and I have paid all my doctors' bills myself and I do not know how much I have paid. I never asked for a cent of relief in my life, yet. But I am down now and cannot work, and I do not suppose I ever will be able to.
Mr. Speaker, I knew that young man when as a boy, blooming, fresh and vigorous at eighteen years of age, he signed up. I knew that boy when he was returned, and when he signed up again. I know his family. They are in my constituency; I know them all by name. I know that what that boy says is
the absolute truth. But can we get anything for him, to help him?-no, sir. I am going to read to the house a letter he received on March 10, 1938. But before doing so, may I say I do not blame the officials in charge. In my judgment they are as fine and sympathetic a lot of men as one could put together. But the laws which we in this parliament have passed have bound those men, with the result that they must write something like what I am going to read:
The commissioners, having reviewed your claim for entitlement to pension in respect of Buerger's disease resulting in amputation of right foot are regretfully of the opinion that this condition has no relation to your service. The commissioners' decision reads as follows:
"This man had two periods of service. He first enlisted February 4. 1915. Served in Canada only and was discharged September 17, 1915, medically unfit.
He reenlisted March 31. 1916, served in France and was discharged November 21, 1917. On his second enlistment he was treated for pyrexia of unknown origin. He was returned to Canada in November, 1917, because of preenlistment defective hearing.
The date of application for Buerger's disease October, 1937. Claim is made that the Buerger's disease originated with the pyrexia of unknown origin on service. First evidence of treatment is that of Doctor Mulloy of Cardston, who states he treated Ellison in 1927, and again in 1931. The evidence fails to show relationship to service, and the application is not granted."
I should like to invite your attention to the printed letter which I am enclosing. This sets out certain information with which you are entitled to be furnished, relative to proceeding further with your application, should you desire to do so.
May I just point out to members of the house that that man was down there, on his back. His wife was working to keep the wolf from the door. They are trying to put two boys through school. And yet he is granted a permit to come up here to Canada to present his case again!
I am going to read the letter which I wrote to the authorities on June 27, 1938. This was addressed to General H. F. McDonald, chairman of the Canadian pension commission, and reads:
There is coming before your commission some time this summer the case of R. D. Ellison. West 2215, Mallon Avenue, Spokane, Washington. U.S., who is requesting pension as a result of Buerger's disease contracted while on service in France which resulted in the amputation of a foot.	,
You will doubtless, I know, appreciate any first hand information to aid you in making your decision. As Mr. Ellison enlisted from my constituency and as 'both be and all his family are personally well known to me, I am perhaps in a position to give you as accurate an account of his past as anyone in Canada.
Before he enlisted he seemed well and strong. His family are all vigorous, healthy people, and the only physical defect which could be in

2312	COMMONS
Pension Act Amendment
any way detected in Mr. Ellison was a slight defect in his hearing. He was particularly impressed upon my mind because of his rather outstanding athletic ability and achievements, and I think we could safely assume that before going to France his limbs were sound.
The fact that he reenlisted seems to me to weigh heavily in his favour as you know that it took plenty of courage and patriotism for a youth. to sign up once; .to sign up a second time after having had experience in that awful struggle required genuine heroism.
Your own observations must have proved to you that many men are of such self-sacrificing, stoical, and independent make-up that they scorn to think of having the state or anybody else keeping them. They enlisted to serve their country and their king and to fight for the cause; especially was that the attitude of our noblest prior to and immediately after 1914. The result was that after discharge many men who were suffering minor pains and disabilities omitted to mention them feeling that they would wear off, or that such disabilities were only to be expected and to be courageously endured by any man whose lot it was to serve in war.
Mr. Ellison and his family generally are of that rather stoical make-up, and the result was that for a long time, although apprehensively aware that all was not right in his feet.^ he did not inform the officials of his condition as he could not know that there might be developing in his limbs a slowly progressing malignant malady such as Buerger's disease. This of course caused him to neglect to keep such evidence as he might have kept tending to prove that his disability was traceable to his hardships in France, where at one time I am informed he stood in mud and rain for sixteen days; a performance sufficient to destroy the health of anyone. It would appear that any man who had gone through such a trial would never again be the same: that his vitality would be permanently impaired, and that the tissues of the parts of his body particularly subjected to such a strain would have their resistance to malady definitely weakened.
In the case of a man who has gone through such rigours, I believe every possible allowance ought to be made to give him the full benefit _ of any doubt. The fact that he is in the United States will not predispose any judge against him when it is remembered that he had to go down into Washington for his wife's health.
Mr. Ellison is in painful need; he is deserving of his country.
I am sure that this man's case received every consideration which could be given to it. This is a letter I received under date of July 2 1938:
In the absence of General McDonald, I have to acknowledge your letter of June 27 last in the above noted case.
On the first hearing of Mr. Ellison's case, the commissioners, with great regret, were unable to find that Buerger's disease had any relation to service, and the application had to be disallowed.
Mr. Ellison, however, has asked that his case proceed to a second hearing and he has appointed the dominion command service bureau of the Canadian legion in Ottawa to represent 
him during the second hearing. Mr. Ellison may rest assured that, if it is at all possible for the commissioners to grant him a pension, they will be only too glad to do so.
I may add, as regards the last paragraph but one of your letter, the fact that Mr. Ellison is living in t'he United States has no bearing whatsoever on his claim. The domicile or nationality of a pensioner or an applicant for pension is immaterial to his claim.
There is nothing wrong with that letter. It is just as kindly, sympathetic and earnest a letter as could be written. I am sure all was done that could be done or that was implied in that letter would be done. Having left at home the next letter which they wrote me, I called up the pensions branch and asked them to send me a copy of the letter they had sent later on dealing with this case. I am putting all these details on the record because I want to be perfectly fair to all the people concerned. I want to bring the case up to date, up to the day on which we are considering it. This is the letter I received from General McDonald under date of March 14, 1939:
I am enclosing herewith copy of a letter which was addressed to you on July 2, last, with regard to Mr. Ellison's case. Since that time Mr. Ellison has been awarded a slight aggravation in respect of otitis media and received a gratuity in this respect for $100 as the disability from this condition is very slight at the present time.
The most serious condition he has is Buerger's disease. The commission have not found that the evidence which has been submitted has been sufficient to relate this condition to his service, but it is now being investigated further by two commissioners who are in the west at the present time, and I have been advised by them that they are seeking advice from the doctors who attended him in the United States at Soap Lake, Washington, and they are making an endeavour to visit that place in order to further consider the matter so that if possible every bit of evidence in Mr. Ellison's favour will be brought out. I do not anticipate that their final decision will be given for a few weeks yet, but I will let you know just as soon as I receive it.
Let me hasten to say that with these letters, with the attitude of these men, with the attitude of the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power) there is absolutely no fault to find. They are doing everything which lies in their power, and yet this man is suffering as no Canadian who fought for his country should be allowed to suffer. The responsibility rests upon us in this chamber.
I think I have spoken as long as I choose to speak, but there is one thing more I should like to say. In my opinion we are treating our returned men in a niggardly fashion. If Canada were a poor country in which there was not the means of an abundant life, it would be a different matter. But there is in

Pension Act Amendment
this dominion a superabundance of everything that a returned soldier needs to support himself and his family. The fact that we are not making it possible to give to the returned men a sufficiency of that abundance will stand as a condemnation of us and of our generation. How that sufficiency could be given is another matter, but it can be given. Of that there is no possible doubt.
There is just one more observation I believe I shall make before I sit down. Hon. members must have been disturbed by the fact that to-day in the Dominion of Canada and throughout the British empire there is not that fervent alacrity and readiness to serve which existed when we were young men. Why? Largely because of the way in which we are treating these returned men. It is hard enough to-day for a young man to live when he has all his limbs and faculties. Only this summer I spoke to one young man who will be available for the next war. He said that when war comes they would have to go, but he was going to do everything in his power to get into the air force or the navy. When I asked him why, he said the reason was that it would be all over quickly. If we believe we can build an army strong enough to fight the future foes of this land out of men who have been so disheartened that they say things like that, then we are not facing realities. In the very interests of this country and the safety of our empire, such changes should be made as will make the young men. upon whose shoulders the burden of the next war will fall, feel that there is at least some possibility of their being compensated in some measure for the terrible sacrifices which they will be called upon to make. It is my plea, sir, that something be done before it is too late.


Albert A. Brown: Mr. Speaker, it had not been my intention to speak on this bill to-night, but I should like to say a few words. I well remember the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power) stating about two years ago that we should write to him if any returned man had a grievance and had been turned down by the board on account of some technicality or another.


Mr. POWER:: I am sure I never said that.


Mr. SPENCE:: I never got anything like that from the minister anyway.


Charles Gavan Power: My hon. friend knows very well I cannot change any decision of the pension commission.
71492-146J


Albert A. Brown: That was my understanding, but the minister's statement now is confirmed by his letters. He could not overrule the board.


Charles Gavan Power: Read the act.


Albert A. Brown: Yes, but I understood the minister to make the statement in this house that I mentioned in my opening remarks.
I accept his word at once.


Charles Gavan Power: I could not have said that. Under the law I could not change a decision of the pension commissioners.


Albert A. Brown: I want to bring to the attention of the minister the fact that many cases have been rejected by the board on account of technicalities which I think the minister should take some cognizance of and do his best to remedy. I have in my riding a man who served overseas. Before enlisting, he was an athlete in the pink of condition. At the front he was gassed and shell-shocked. He spent considerable time in hospital, and when he came back to the city of Hamilton he was examined only for his heart, and possibly his dental condition. Within a couple of months of his discharge he became troubled with bronchial and asthmatic conditions. Before his discharge he had been passed as fit by one of the doctors who thought he was doing this chap a good turn. Various doctors stated that his bronchial and asthmatic conditions were the result of his war service, but like a good many other soldiers he fought his battles alone and did not wish to become a burden to the country. Three or four years later, when he was no longer in a position to support himself, his savings and earning capacity having gone, he applied for a pension, and he was told, "Your board states that you were discharged physically fit." But, Mr. Speaker, we can produce doctors who will state that undoubtedly this man's condition was caused by his war service.
Another soldier was awarded a partial disability pension for bronchial trouble. He is now becoming absolutely deaf. Physicians for the board say that his deafness has nothing to do with his bronchial trouble. On the other hand, we have specialists who will state that the deafness was undoubtedly caused by the bronchial and asthmatic conditions for which he was receiving a partial disability pension.
Another case is that of the widow of a soldier who was receiving a pension. Some of the doctors stated that the soldier's death was probably caused by his war service. Other doctors attributed it to something else. I
Pension Act Amendment

think that in such circumstances, where a soldier served overseas for three or four years, was wounded and subjected to gas attacks, he should be given the benefit of any doubt.
Then there is the wife of a returned man, with six children. He was turned down for a pension, and his wife says, "I am going to vote communist in the next election because the government is not looking after the returned men who fought overseas."


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to enter into any monetary discussion of where we are going to find the money to pay for these pensions, as my hon. friend to my left (Mr. Blackmore) started to do, but there are two or three matters I should like to bring to the attention of the minister.
I think this bill is a good one. If I understand it correctly, it does away with the appeal board in Ottawa and sets up appeal boards which will come a little closer to the problems which have to be considered. But I wonder if it would not have been better if the bill had gone a step further and set up some kind of sympathetic board such as they have in England. I am sure the minister knows of this board and that some five hundred cases in England, which would have been a travesty on justice if left as they were, were looked after by the board. We have a great many such cases in Canada, border-line cases of one kind or another, such as a chap in my riding who was afflicted with a funny nerve disease called disseminated sclerosis. The minister no doubt knows the name. It strikes you here, there or some other place in the body. I think the minister understands. But it is very difficult to say just what causes this disease. There is a very great difference of opinion between the doctors, whether this disease is a result of war service or not. I endeavoured to get a pension for this man, who had this borderline disease, but his application was turned down. I think if we had some kind of sympathetic board such as they have in England, and they had seen the record of this man and the difficulties he had gone through during the war, he probably would be getting a pension now. But he was turned down flat.
There are a great many of these cases, and it is difficult to know whether their disability at present is the result of war service or not. We do know that some men are better off as a result of the medical attention they have received during their service, but there

are others who seem to go down hill later on, and therefore it is hard to find out whether their trouble is attributable to war service.
To a certain extent I am in favour of this bill, but might it not have been a good idea to extend it a little? There is another class of men, for example, who might have been considered, the imperial veterans. The imperial veteran is like an outcast so far as pensions in Canada are concerned. After all, he is a Canadian and he gets a very small pension from the British government. Living conditions in Canada are different from those in England, and he is having more and more difficulty as time goes on in securing what may be called his rights.
My suggestion to the minister last year was that he should allow these veterans to avail themselves of the services of the advocates connected with our pension department. I do not think the suggestion was too far afield, that the imperials might have the service of the pension department's advocates so that they might be saved expense in their efforts to obtain the pensions which they deserve but apparently cannot get.
There is another point. Last year I was the first member to bring up in the House of Commons the plight of the war widows of Canada. There are not so many of them that should be receiving pensions. We must remember that when our boys went overseas, from 1914 to 1918, they were told that Canada would look after them and their dependents. Canada has done a pretty good job so far, but what do we find now? We find that the war widow whose husband was in receipt of less than eighty per cent pension has great difficulty in getting a pension at all. If her husband dies of a non-pensionable disease, she has a very hard time. If he dies of cancer or of some disease of that soft, she is out of luck, but if he had died two or three days later of a pensionable disease she would get a pension. There are about 2,000 war widows in Canada whose husbands were receiving pensions of from ten to eighty per cent disability, and their maximum pension would be $60 a month. If the husband dies of a non-pensionable disease, the widow is out of luck. But why should she be cut off just because the man dies of a non-pensionable disease whereas, if he lived two or three days longer and died of a pensionable disease, she might have some chance of obtaining a pension?
If these 2,000 war widows obtained $60 a month each, the total would be only about $1,144,000 a year, and that is not very much

Pension Act Amendment
for the country to pay to redeem all the promises made to our soldiers when they went overseas originally, and the assurance given them that their dependents would not want. I think we might easily have gone further in this bill and extended it to cover these war widows. We must also remember that times are getting harder. These women are getting older all the time, and it does seem a pity that they should be destitute, sometimes with children to look after. They helped their husbands when they were getting a thirty or forty per cent pension and we might have done something in their behalf.
There is one other point which I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. It comes under the Militia Act, but I will bring it up now. In 1919 the Militia Act was revised with respect to pensions. The pensions of those in the militia were increased, but those poor fellows who were pensioned before 1919 have now the same status that they had then. Nothing was done about them. I have asked the Minister of Pensions (Mr. Power) whether he could not persuade the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) to do something under the Militia Act to take care of these men. There are only about ninety or one hundred of them in Canada to-day, and I do not think that these injustices should continue.
I am glad to see that the Pension Act is being amended. I believe the quorums will be in closer touch with the cases and we shall consequently have more justice. I do wish the minister would consider setting up what we might call a sympathetic board to adjudicate on these border-line cases that appeal to our sympathy. We are all anxious to see that no injustices continue against those boys who went overseas and gave such service to the country. I could bring down a volume of .pension cases and read them to the house. I have upstairs in my room seven or eight hundred petitions, as one might call them, from war widows. I should be glad to have them bound and give them to the Minister of Pensions for his attention.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I rise to ask one or two questions of the minister. I know a number of returned men, whose cases I have on file, who have not been successful in getting their pension. The first question I would ask is whether, if this board is changed, it will be possible for those people to have a pension.


Charles Gavan Power: I cannot reply until we
get into committee.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I know that one of the
outstanding reasons which make it difficult for a returned man to get a pension is that they were in such a hurry to get home that they signed off. I said to one man, "Why were you in such a hurry to get home?" He said, "Look here, Dan, if you had not seen your wife and two wee kiddies for four years you would break your neck to get home." And I suppose I would. I know this Pension Act has been improved year after year; I know that after examining the files in the pension board I realized that I had been too hasty in forming a conclusion. I have the record of eight returned men and two war widows who, I think, are entitled to pension, and a generous one. I will give the case of one man who was receiving a fair pension. He had many wounds, and was not as fit for work as the average man. Seemingly he was never out of pain; the only time he had any relief was when he got tight. Then one day something happened, he went down into his own cellar and passed out suddenly. His wife cannot get a pension.
I am proud to-day of the attitude of our returned men all over Canada in relation to our empire and the defence of Canada; many of them are ready to offer their services again. I repeat my question to the minister: Will these people, men or women who have not been successful up to the present time, have any hope under this bill of getting a pension? When I came down and told the story and showed the facts concerning one man, he got a pension, and whether it was the excitement or what, he lived only two weeks after that. I could take the chairman of the pension board into a home in Fort William today, and unless there is something very peculiar on the file I am sure that man would receive more consideration.
We are told that returned men should get the benefit of the doubt. I know from my experience in about ten cases that they got the benefit of the doubt. I am sure that the Minister of Pensions (Mr. Power) is just as keen as we are to see that every soldier gets his due, and I am sure he will do his best. I have not any fault to find with any official. But I am anxious to know whether there will be any hope for these people under this bill when it is shown that there is an outstanding need.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: This bill deals almost wholly with the abolition of the appeal court, and a few minor but some fairly substantial changes, all of them for the benefit, I think, of the returned men.
Pension Act Amendment

The minister must be gratified at the almost unanimous support his bill has received; I have not heard or read any criticism of what is in the bill, but merely of what is not in it, so to speak. I was not in the house when the earlier debate on the second reading took place, but I have read it in Hansard since, and particularly the speeches made by hon. members from British Columbia, the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens), the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil), and the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), who gave in temperate and non-partisan language a clear exposition of the situation as we see it in British Columbia, where there are so many returned men. Apparently they joined in asking that the minister submit the bill to a pension committee to be set up as in former years. I should like to join in that request. We think of the committees in the past, of which the minister himself was always the most prominent member and very often the chairman, and of the great work he always did in that regard. That was one committee, I think about the only one, that deliberated in a non-partisan spirit, and its report, which was generally unanimous, was of such a character that the government could readily give attention to it, being distinguished, I repeat, by the absence of any political element.
Sending this bill to such a committee would enable a number of matters to be debated, some of which have been touched on here to-night, which it would be impossible thoroughly to discuss here, because the officials are not here and the minister cannot reply to questions until we go into committee; in any event, there are many phases which cannot be adequately discussed in committee of the whole house. I received a letter this morning-I have it before me now; I did not know this question was coming up tonight-touching on a number of features, all of which have been put before the house by Dne or another of the hon. members from British Columbia. The question of pensions for veterans of the Fenian raid could also be debated before that committee. Even in a political sense I cannot see that the government would have anything to lose by setting up this committee and referring the bill to it, with these other questions which have come up. For one thing it would save a great deal of time and relieve the government of responsibility. The report would probably be unanimous, as I think it always has been; the government could say in defence of their action before the country that this nonpartisan committee agreed to so and so,

whereas if they go ahead as they are doing now they will have to accept the whole responsibility for matters for which they are perhaps not entirely responsible. Therefore I should like to join with the other hon. members who have urged that pensions matters go to a committee.
It appears probable from the program outlined by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to-day that we are going to be here for a long time yet, and there will probably be ample time for such a committee to sit and consider the whole question; and after all the government have control of both the committee and the house. It would give the ex-soldiers and their representatives the feeling that they got a run for their money at any rate, and that their grievances have received consideration. Some are sound and fundamental, others quite casual and perhaps not deserving of great consideration, but in any event they will be discussed without partisan bias by soldiers; for most of the committee would be ex-soldiers, representing every section of the house and the country. That would be to the benefit of the government and of the country, and certainly it would give the soldiers a feeling of satisfaction even if they did not get all they seek; they would have the satisfaction at any rate of knowing that their case had been heard fairly and fully by an unbiased tribunal.


Mr. J. A. MARSHALL (Camrose):: I
deem it my duty to take part in the debate on the second reading of Bill No. 6, the purpose of which is to amend the Pension Act. I was a member of the committee which was set up by the house to study the problems of returned men in 1936. The meetings of the committee in that year were interesting to me, and a great deal of progress was made towards the solution of some of the problems confronting the returned men. Since 1936, however, no meetings of that committee have been held, and I believe the time has now come when the committee should sit again to take into consideration the problems which have arisen during the last two years.
The bill now under consideration provides for two changes. The first is the abolition of the pension appeal court and the setting up of appeal boards of the commission, each consisting of three members, in place of the present quorum of the commission. The second change simply extends the time for pension applications to the year 1942.
I am not so much concerned as to whether or not this is a wise move. I am more concerned with the result than with the methods

Pension Act Amendment
adopted to obtain that result. This change in the act is simply a change of method; we are changing from a pension appeal court to an appeal board of the commission. As I have just said, I am more concerned about the results which we shall obtain from that change than with the methods to be followed. If the results are no better than those of the past, then I must condemn the change. If, on the other hand, we have the word of the minister that it is for the good of the returned soldier, that it will be more beneficial to him, then I am heartily behind the minister. In reference to the second change, the extension of the time to 1942, this simply means that returned men who saw service in an actual theatre of war may have until that year to make application for pension; in other woi'ds, it extends the time to one year beyond the life of the present parliament.
I believe the success or failure of the new set-up will depend entirely upon the attitude of mind which will be brought by the members of these boards to the consideration of the cases that come before them. If they concentrate their attention more upon the financial aspect than upon the moral aspect of ^the situation, then no good will result. If, on the other hand, they are genuinely sincere in desiring to find a solution to the problems of the returned men, the change will be indeed worth while. In advocating that the committee should sit during this session, however, I do so because other problems concerning the returned men require attention. These problems have been outlined already by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) and the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), but perhaps I may be pardoned if I list some of them again. No provision is made in any of the acts-I do not use the word "pension" because that is a method of bringing about a certain result-for children born after May 1, 1933. No provision is made in respect of the wife of a pensioner married after May 1, 1933. No provision has been made to take care of the widow of a pensioner unless he dies of a pensionable disability or was in receipt of a pension of eighty per cent or more. These are very important problems which should be discussed by the committee this session. I feel quite sure that the committee, working harmoniously as it did in 1936, could bring in recommendations that would be adopted unanimously by this house.
There is one other problem that has not been tackled as yet; that is the submission that the remainder of the returned soldiers unemployed be provided for by the payment
of an allowance to be known as the provisional economic allowance. I believe that is something which should be carefully studied as a possible method of bringing about a certain result, and I believe that committee, if it were called together and given an opportunity of discussing this important matter, could arrive at something that would be well worth while. So I would add my voice to those who have already spoken, in asking the minister in all sincerity to cal! the committee together during the present session in order that we may discuss some ot the important problems that confront the returned men at the present time.


Joseph Henry Harris: There are just one or two observations I should like to make, Mr. Speaker; and without taking time to reiterate what has been said by some of the other hon. members who have spoken, let me tell the minister that I endorse the first half of the remarks made by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) in regard to the cases he cited. I endorse what was said by the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Ross) in regard to war widows, and also what was said by the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Brown). With regard to the last half of the remarks of the hon. member for Lethbridge, in connection with finding the money, I disagree with him.
I should like to make this other observation, which I made in this house three years ago. It will not be very long before most of these cases are taken care of by Father Time. Another decade will see a large rfumber of these men pass on. So could not this House of Commons, as a unit, support any legislation that will see to it that we as a body do our bit until such time as these men are removed from the scene by time? In that connection I should like to bring to the attention of the minister the plight of the widows, as mentioned by the hon. member for St. Paul's. If a census were taken to ascertain the number of widows who are not in receipt of pensions, and the number of widowers who served overseas and who are not receiving pensions, I think it would be found that there were twice as many widows as widowers.
My point is that a medical man in giving his findings might say that a soldier [DOT] had probably died from cancer. Perhaps the minister will agree that cancer is one of the diseases which carries off a great many returned men. It may be that their illness from that disease is not related to war service. The same individual might have been shell-shocked and subsequently discharged from the army as being fit. Then, a number of men who served overseas might pass away from heart
Pension Act Amendment

attack, which could not be attributable to war service. Nevertheless these men have left widows and dependents behind them.
Since their return from overseas the men who had families to provide for found themselves competing with another generation which had grown up during the time they were serving overseas. The returned men have found it difficult to compete in the labour market and to earn sufficient to provide themselves even with the bare necessities of life. Some of those men have passed away, leaving their families more or less destitute through no fault of their own.
My observations are not a reflection on the conduct of the department over which the minister has the privilege of presiding. I believe that ever since the war the department under very difficult circumstances has been trying to do a job. On most of the occasions it has been my privilege to pass judgment on the department I have found fair treatment. I believe the minister will agree with me that only rarely have I found it necessary to speak to him. In fact, since he has been minister of the department, I do not think he has seen me in his office many times.
Coupled with these remarks I should like to make this further one, that I do not believe in any other constituency in Canada there are more cases for consideration by the pension branch than in the one in the suburban area outside Toronto it has been my privilege to represent. I have found the men concerned quite reasonable in their requests. On the other hand, I have found the department and the pension commission reasonable and considerate in the discussion of cases.
But what I want to urge at this time is this: As the time is very short, let us all as a unit, including all parties, do everything humanly possible for the returned men and widows, so that generations to come will be able to say that in this particular regard we have not failed.
I am sorry that I could not follow that section of the remarks of the hon. member for Lethbridge in which he set out his method of finding the money which would be required. I believe the hon. member outlined the Social Credit method of finding the money. As an alternative, may I suggest a more practical way of doing it? It would appear that in the next two-or perhaps six months, depending upon the temper of the house-staggering sums of money will be voted. In those sums I do not include moneys required by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie). I would hope that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin) would find ways and

means for an equal distribution, or a distribution having regard to the principle of representation by population. I should like to see the ministry rise in its place-and by the way I see my point has not been clearly understood by the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar). I was suggesting that instead of the Minister of Public Works trying to figure out supplementary estimates amounting to many millions of dollars to be distributed according to the principle of representation by population, otherwise known as "rep. by pop," that you, sir, as Minister of Mines and Resources and as one of the senior members of the cabinet, together with other ministers of the crown, just take that public works money which we shall be asked to vote, cut it in half, and give the remaining half to the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power) for purposes of pensions.


Charles Gavan Power: Give it to me.


Joseph Henry Harris: The minister says, "Give it to me." I would say it should be cut in half, and certainly I would trust the Minister of Pensions and National Health with it for pension legislation.


Mr. CRERAR:: I shall have a great deal of pleasure in conveying the hon. member's suggestion to the Minister of Public Works.


Joseph Henry Harris: Well, that would be "progress reported" at least. Cut the supplementary estimates in half, so that a half could be directed to those pieces of legislation concerning pensions which are presently on the statute books. Have those moneys equitably distributed, without fear or favour, by the Minister of Pensions and National Health.
We have only about ten years left in which to do everything possible for the returned men. While I am anxious to see economy practised, at the same time I am anxious to see written on the records of history, in the days to come, that without playing politics or conferring any favours on any particular group or class the dominion parliament did its part for those who served to save Canada between 1914 and 1918.


Mr. J. C. LANDERYOU (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, I do not feel that I can agree with the hon. member who has just spoken. To my mind it is unnecessary to rob Peter to pay Paul. All I would suggest is that the government carry out the promises which were made in the 1935 election campaign, upon which occasion they stated they were going to issue money and credit sufficient to meet the needs of all. I notice the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) is smiling and nodding his head. I can remember

Pension Act Amendment
that in many of the provinces he made the statement that there was no shortage of money. That was before he occupied the treasury benches. I believe $430,000,000 was the figure he mentioned at that time, on numerous occasions.


Henry Herbert Stevens: As a start.


John Charles Landeryou: But I do hope that without robbing Peter to pay Paul the government will fulfil its promise to issue money in terms of public need.
I do not believe the bill goes far enough, and I agree with some hon. members who have said that it should be referred to a committee. Many problems have developed in connection with ex-service men, their widows and dependents. Many hon. members from time to time have urged the minister and the government to pass legislation to deal with the problems of the widows of ex-service men. Many have found it very difficult to trace the death of their husbands to war service. At this time I wish to add my views to those of other hon. members who have urged the government to pension the widows of ex-service men, to pay them a straight economic allowance sufficient to meet their requirements.
There is also the question of the ex-service man who was not wounded overseas, who is not in receipt of a pension and who finds himself unable to compete on the labour market with the younger generation. There are no opportunities for such men in industry; there are no opportunities for them in employment of any kind.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: How about Mr. Aberhart?


John Charles Landeryou: He is not an ex-service man.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: He can take care of everybody in some way.


John Charles Landeryou: The average age of these men is somewhere near fifty years, and it is practically an impossibility for them to secure employment. I -feel that a straight economic allowance should be paid to these ex-service men who are now walking the highways and byways of this country without an opportunity for employment of any kind.


Mr. R. E. FINN (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker,
I did not intend to speak to-night, but I rise for the purpose of complimenting the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power) upon bringing down this revamped legislation. I believe it is a step in the right direction; it is an expression of
what is in the heart of every hon. member. We all want to see something more done for the returned man if it is at all possible.
In fairness to those who were not old enough to go overseas, but who were quite near that age, let me say that they too should receive some consideration from this government and from hon. gentlemen irrespective of party. Hon. gentlemen opposite spoke of these returned men as those who are going down the lane where there will be a last turn before they eventually go to mother earth.
I think we should remember that this parliament has been very generous in its desire to do the best it possibly can for these men.
I do not want to minimize the service of those who went overseas; I do not want to minimize the service of those who remained at home worrying and wondering whether their loved ones would return-there are those who sacrificed their lives and have asked nothing in return for the great sacrifice they made.
I rise only for the purpose of saying that we should not get the returned soldier in a frame of mind where he thinks that very little has been done for him. Every hon. gentleman knows that in connection with the appointment to every civil service position there is a thirty per cent benefit in favour of the returned soldier. If a return could be made of the positions in every department of government, it would show the large percentage of overseas men who have been appointed to the service and who are now receiving their earthly reward for their fine soldierly service. I do not want for one moment to minimize the service that anyone gave in the great war, because that came very close to me. I saw my young nephew off on a transport which left Halifax, but to-day he is buried in Prance. He died when only eighteen years of age. Like many others he gave his life for what Woodrow Wilson said was to make democracy safe for the world.
Camp Hill hospital is located in my constituency, and I am glad to see that the minister is making it possible for greater help to be given to the .returned soldier who is not able to work because of his overseas service. As I understand this legislation, these men will now be permitted to enter hospital for treatment. Previously they were turned away. I know of returned men in Halifax who are ill, who are nervous, who are suffering many pains, but who have not been permitted to enter the hospital for treatment. The staff in the hospital receive large salaries and are almost falling over each other in
Pension Act Amendment

carrying out their medical and surgical duties, but these men cannot get treatment. I am not talking about the man who is able to go about and enjoy God's sunlight and fresh air; I am talking about the poor returned soldier who is ill, but to whom these doctors have previously turned a deaf ear. I am glad the minister has provided for the hospitalization of these men.
By this legislation these applications may be reopened until 1942. These are comprehensive measures. I heard some hon. member across the floor say that the estimates of the Department of Public Works should be cut in half, one-half being handed over to the returned soldiers. The Department of Public Works, under the able management of the deputy minister, Mr. Hunter, and the chief engineer, Mr. Cameron, see to the needs of Canada in connection with breakwaters, wharves, dredging and various other matters which are important to the whole of Canada. They must be looked after because, if Canada dies, how can we look after the returned soldier?
These are just a few passing thoughts which came to my mind as I listened to the hon. gentlemen speak. I think there is the desire on the part of all hon. members, irrespective of party or group, to do the best possible for the returned man and to pass such^ enabling legislation as will be comprehensive to all, whether or not he be learned in the law. For these reasons I am proud to congratulate the hon. Minister of Pensions and National Health, and if in his judgment and the judgment of the house the bill should go to a special committee, there to be gone over and made more straight and less devious for the returned soldier and his widow and dependent children, I shall be pleased on all occasions to give the best that is in me to bring about such results and to make the returned soldier and his dependents feel that we have not forgotten those who fell in Flanders fields where the poppies grow.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Just a word or two, Mr. Speaker, before the bill receives its second reading. First, I want to say that I think everybody is convinced that in the minister hijnself the department is headed by one who for years has held a very prominent place in this house in the battle for the rights of the returned soldiers; and under him the minister has in General McDonald one for whom the returned men have every respect and the warmest regard.
I heard a member say a few moments ago that he had more returned men in his riding than in any other, but I doubt if any riding has more returned men than the riding of 
Toronto-Davenport, in which is situated Earlscourt, from which so many, many regiments went overseas.
I have read the bill through just casually, and I may have overlooked something that I had in mind, namely, the hope that the bill would contain some easier provision applying to the widows of returned soldiers. I have several such cases in mind, but I do not think it is necessary for me to mention them specifically at the moment. There is, however, one in particular that has been under my notice for some time, the claim of Mrs. Fuller, whose husband died in the north country, through having been frozen to death on his way back to civilization. I hope that if this bill is referred to a special committee, as I understand is the minister's intention, provision will be made for hearing the widows of returned soldiers, so that they may appear and present their cases in connection with amendments that may be proposed to take care of this class.
I have nothing further to add, but as one representing many returned soldiers I do hope that the sad lot of so many of them who have not received consideration, will be improved through the provisions of this bill.
^ Mr. N. J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln): Mr. Speaker, before this bill receives its second reading, I want to associate myself with those who have spoken on behalf of the ex-service men.
Reference has been made to the fast declining number of ex-service men, and that is all too evident throughout Canada. There are one or two classes that I should like particularly to mention. I am heartily in accord with giving all the support that can be granted to the widow of the returned soldier. I know the minister knows, as does every member of this house, that there are a great many widows of returned soldiers who have nursed their husbands through long sickness. The soldier may have been in receipt of a partial or total disability pension, granted sometimes upon compassionate grounds, through the benefit of the doubt being given where the particulars on the discharge certificate were not too clear. Then, when the soldier has died, technicalities are raised, possibly a postmortem is held, and the benefit of the doubt is not given to the widow and family of the deceased soldier, although to the average lay mind it would seem that the widow and the family should be provided for through a pension.
I know of such cases. One returned soldier was receiving a considerable pension. He died and his widow has now two sons growing up to manhood. Through a technicality these

Pension Act Amendment
two sons have the humiliating experience of seeing their mother being forced to go out to do domestic work, and it is difficult for these boys who are growing up to understand why the pension of their father, who gave his all for this country, is not permitted to be carried on for at least a few more years to his widow until perhaps she reaches the time when, she would be eligible for old age pension.
These are tragic cases, and surely when this bill is under consideration in committee some consideration will be given to providing for them. More latitude should be allowed. We know that the officers of the several departments are most efficient. Tribute has already been paid to them and it does not need repetition at this moment; nevertheless the officials repeatedly say: "We have to live within the terms of the act." I say, Mr. Speaker, let us try to make this act a little more in keeping with our humanitarian ideas, and so I trust that the minister in his wisdom and the committee in their deliberations on this bill will be able to enlarge its provisions to take a little better care of just such cases as I have mentioned. These two boys, who are now growing up to manhood, have seen their father's life sacrificed, his pension cut off, and his widow forced to go out to work simply because his discharge certificate did not contain all the information it should have contained.
Widows and their growing families, descendants of our war veterans, are being robbed of their rights just because some little detail was neglected. I appeal for greater consideration for these soldiers' widows and their families, so that there will not be a blot on the records of this parliament in our treatment of the families of the men who were promised so much when they went overseas in 1914, and so that the growing sons of our returned men, if we should within the next few weeks face similar difficulties again, will not in bitterness say, "If I go I expect to get the same treatment my father got." It is up to this government to see that there is no possible recurrence of these cases. It is up to us in this parliament and it is up to the people of Canada to keep faith with the veterans who went overseas, many of whom are still suffering anguish and all kinds of hardships. Let us keep faith with them and show that Canada stands behind the men who stood for us in our time of need.
Motion (Mr. Power) agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 1-"Court."


Charles Gavan Power: Almost all the amendments refer only to cases in which the appeal court was mentioned, and -there is a change to "appeal board of the commission." There are a very large number of sections in the act, but under a rule adopted last year it was found necessary to rewrite almost every section which was changed, in many instances simply by the alteration of one word.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In other words, the effect of the bill is to abolish the appeal court and to replace it with an appeal board.


Charles Gavan Power: Appeal board of the commission.


Mr. GREEN:: Is the minister unwilling to refer the bill to a special committee?


Charles Gavan Power: I do not think it is necessary to refer it. If the bill were referred to a committee, I do not think the committee would consider it for five minutes, because the house is unanimously in favour of every section, or nearly every section of it. Last year I was blamed, censured and railed at by all sections of the house because I did not immediately introduce a bill to abolish the appeal court. Now that I do it, I am asked to send the bill to a committee. The house was unanimously in favour of the bill, and I do not know why it should go to a committee.


Howard Charles Green: The reason why we ask that it be sent to a committee is that the other defects of the act may be considered.


Charles Gavan Power: That has nothing to do with this bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Jurisdiction of commission.
Mr. MacNEIL:: Will the minister explain
the functions of the appeal board to be constituted as part of the commission?


Charles Gavan Power: They have very much the same jurisdiction as the quorum at the present time, the jurisdiction which the appeal court has had.


Grote Stirling: Will it do its work entirely in Ottawa or move about the country?


Charles Gavan Power: It may travel and the applicant may be heard before it.


Howard Charles Green: How many appeal boards is it intended to set up?


Charles Gavan Power: There will be more than likely two functioning most of the time, possibly the third at Ottawa.
Pension Act Amendment


Charles Grant MacNeil: That will be exclusive of
the appeal board which will be set up to grant leave to reopen cases?


Charles Gavan Power: The granting of leave to reopen cases will be one of the functions of the appeal board.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Regulations.
Howard Charles Green: This merely makes provision for the appeal boards instead of the old pension appeal court.


Charles Gavan Power: That is all.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Repeal.
Charles Gavan Power: This repeals all sections dealing with the appeal court.


Howard Charles Green: Will there be any difference in the salaries paid, the total amount of salaries, after this bill? Will they be different from the salaries paid at the present time?


Charles Gavan Power: If my hon. friend wants to know whether the present pension commissioners will have their salaries increased, the answer is, no.


Howard Charles Green: Apparently the appeal court is to be abolished. Will that mean replacing four members of the appeal court by appointing four new members of the pension commission?


Charles Gavan Power: If my hon. friend wants to know whether provision will be made for some compensation to the present members of the appeal court, the government is considering that angle of the matter. It is not proposed to let them go without some compensation. With respect to the members of the Canadian pension commission who will become members of the appeal board, it is not proposed that there shall be any extra salary. There will be a saving of some $29,000.


Howard Charles Green: Will there be any new commissioners now?


Charles Gavan Power: It is possible, but not probable.


Alan Webster Neill: Is it the intention of the government to appoint present members of the court as commissioners?


Charles Gavan Power: The present commissioners will act as appeal board.


Charles Grant MacNeil: But is it intended to reappoint those who are now members of the court?


Charles Gavan Power: That has not been considered. There would be nothing to prevent the government from appointing a member of the court as a member of the commission.


Howard Charles Green: The intention is largely to take members of the present commission and set them up as an appeal board?


Charles Gavan Power: That is all.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Registrar to be permanent employee of department.
Howard Charles Green: Why is it provided that the registrar shall hold office during pleasure?


Charles Gavan Power: This office of registrar was created in 1930. I do not know exactly why, but again in 1936 there was some doubt as to whether he was a civil servant or not and in order that he should not be out of a job we have made provision for him in this section. There is no particular reason for it, except that he is a registrar of the appeal court and he would possibly be out of a job unless we did something of the kind.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Repeal.
Howard Charles Green: Will there be any appeals by the crown to the new appeal board?


Charles Gavan Power: No; this does away with all appeals by the crown.


Howard Charles Green: Will this do away with the reviewing officer?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I wish to urge on the minister again the necessity of amending paragraph (b) of section 11 of the Pension Act. Paragraph (b) reads:
no deduction shall be made from the degree of actual disability of any member of the forces -who has served in a theatre of actual war on account of any disability or disabling condition which existed in him at the time at which he became a member of the forces; but no pension shall be paid for a disability or disabling condition -which at such time was wilfully concealed, was obvious, was not of a nature to cause rejection from service, or was a congenital defect.
The amendment is necessary for the reason that under the existing regulations the intention as declared in this section is limited with regard to that exception "or was a congenital

Pension Act Amendment
defect." The intention of parliament with regard to this section was clearly stated on previous occasions-


Frederick George Sanderson: I would point out that the hon. member is discussing a section that is not in this bill.


Charles Grant MacNeil: The general act has been opened up, and I desire to propose an amendment to section 11. I am attempting to explain the purpose of my amendment.


Charles Gavan Power: Section 11 of the act is not before us.


Henry Herbert Stevens: On the point of order, I think it is- an accepted rule that when a bill is opened up for amendment, the whole act is open to be considered. But in order to get before the committee a section that is not in the bill referred to the committee a motion must be made in the house on third reading to re-commit the bill with instructions to the committee to do so and so. I think that is the only way in which the new matter can be given consideration.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I urge the minister not to press this point of order. If this bill is not to be referred to a special committee of the house, and if we are called to order in discussing the problems that have arisen in connection with other sections of the act, we are placed in a difficult position. I point out that on a previous occasion during the present session when a general act was opened up, it was your ruling, Mr. Chairman, that amendments could be introduced with regard to other sections.


Frederick George Sanderson: I quote from May twelfth edition, page 370:
Amendments cannot be moved which are based on schedules or other provisions, the terms of which have not been placed before the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-Extension of time for pension application.
Howard Charles Green: This section is the only one which does not deal with the wiping out of the appeal court. But it does deal with the so-called dead-line. This section should receive the careful consideration of all hon. members. As I understand it, there was no dead-line for applications for pension before the sitting of this parliament in 1936. At that session, the first one of this parliament, a deadline was imposed in this way: First, all men who served only in England or Canada were cut off as of the first day of July, 1936. After that date no veteran in either one of those
two groups could apply for pension. A soldier who served in a theatre of war was given until January 1, 1940, to apply for pension. After that date he would have to get special leave from the pension commission before he could even apply. There was considerable argument about that provision in 1936 before the special committee on pensions and returned soldiers' problems. Many of us felt that there should be no dead-line for the veterans who had served in France. To-day I am more convinced than ever that that dead-line should be wiped out, that no' such obstacle to obtaining a pension should be placed in the way of our fighting men who saw service in a theatre of war. I ask this committee to-night, regardless of party-because, after all, these soldier problems are not party matters-to do away with this dead-line. This section of the bill merely proposes to push the dead-line ahead two years, to January 1, 1942. Before that time it will have to come up for consideration again. I submit that there should be no dead-line for the fighting men. Those who apply for pension now, have to trace their disability right back to the time of the war, a very difficult task in itself, without having to get over another hurdle of getting permission from the pension commission even to apply. Many of our returned men who were wTounded, who actually bear wounds received overseas, are not drawdng pension because, although wounded, they have not broken down. As time goes on and these men get older, they break down as a result of their wounds. Men of that class should not be handicapped when they come to the pension commission to get compensation for disability.
In May, 1936, the house provided for a degree of finality in these matters by providing for the first time that, on what is called second hearing, an applicant had to claim for every disability. There was no such thing as coming back again in a year or two and asking compensation for some additional disability; he had to put all his eggs in the one basket. Also, the number of pension applications has been dropping year by year. In the fiscal year 1937-38, it dropped by 646 as compared with the previous year, and there had been a drop in each year for several years. So, for these reasons too, I suggest to-night that we wipe out this dead-line. For that purpose I move the following amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil), which I think will accomplish that end:
That bill No. 6, to amend the Pensions Act, be amended by substituting for section 8 thereof the following:
Pension Act Amendment

8. Section 12A of the said act, as enacted by section 11 of chapter 44 of the statutes of 1936, is amended by repealing all but the first line thereof and substituting for the portion repealed the following:
"who did not serve in a theatre of actual war shall not be awarded unless application therefor has been made before the first day of July, 1936."
If this amendment is passed, section 12A will read: "a pension for disability of a member of the forces who did not serve in a theatre of actual war shall not be awarded unless application therefor has been made before the first day of July, 1936." In other words, it leaves the dead-line as it stands at the present time for the man who served only in England or Canada, but completely wipes out any reference to a dead-line for the veteran who served in a theatre of war. I believe it is only just that there should be no dead-line for those men who, after all, were Canada's fighting men.


Charles Gavan Power: I have some doubt as to whether this amendment is quite in order. However, I pass that over for the moment.
I should like to direct the attention of the committee to the fact that from the time pensions were commenced, until 1930, there was always a dead-line, beyond which date applications would not be received. As a matter of fact, I think when the committee met in 1928 the dead-line had been passed, and there was a period of six or eight months during which applications for pensions could not be legally received. No great harm was done, however, there was a renewal of the dead-line, and that had been done every year or every two years. In 1936 this question was given a great deal of consideration by the committee. If the deliberations of that committee should have any authority in this house, this was one of the matters most fully discussed, namely whether or not it would be possible to set a dead-line for applications for pension. As my hon. friend has said, a dead-line was established for applications from people who saw service only in Canada. In 1936, with the unanimous consent of the committee, provision was made in the legislation under which a man, even if he were barred by the time limit, could still come before the commission and have his case considered. As a matter of fact, I think it was the unanimous opinion of the committee in 1936 that the only purpose served by a dead-line was to prevent frivolous claims from being entertained; that anyone who had a real, substantial claim could be heard under the act.
This year I came to the conclusion that there was no agitation on the part of returned soldiers, their associations or anybody else,

to have this dead-line extended; but after some consideration, just in case there might be some injustice done, I thought perhaps I had better ask parliament to extend the period for another two years. But even that date is not a dead-line, in that the returned soldier has every opportunity to have his case heard and considered even after 1942, the date established in this bill. I believe the principle is good. As the house knows, in Great Britain the dead-line was set at seven years after the war. If we make certain, by legislation which was unanimously approved by members of the 1936 committee, that no injustice will be done, I hardly think my hon. friend's point is well taken.


Howard Charles Green: I think the minister will remember that this dead-line was a compromise; it was not that we all agreed to it.


Charles Gavan Power: So many things were compromises with my hon. friend that I cannot be sure about this one.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I submit there is ample justification for the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver South. I well remember the discussion in the committee, and my understanding was that the matter was temporarily left in abeyance. The argument of the minister that the dead-line was established by previous parliamentary committees, and that therefore a dead-line should be set now, I suggest is hardly well founded. The reason the dead-line has been advanced from time to time by parliamentary committees is that it has been shown there are still men who have the right to establish entitlement under the act. There are many men who for various reasons have not advanced their claims. They may have been in prosperous circumstances and, out of some feeling of independence, felt that they should not go through the procedure required to establish entitlement. Now, perhaps on account of advancing years or depressed economic conditions, they are seized with the importance of establishing entitlement, particularly having regard to their dependents.
I am particularly interested in the ex-service men who dwell in remote settlements. I have had some experience in visiting the homes of ex-service men living in small settlements up the Pacific coast, and have been astonished at their ignorance with regard to their rights under the act. There are many men who to all appearances could easily establish entitlement to pension in respect of disabilities resulting from wounds; they bear the marks of the wounds on their bodies, but they have not the slightest idea of their rights under the act, and have not advanced their claims. The

Pension Act Amendment
difference between the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver South and the method suggested by the minister is that under the amendment these men will have the right to advance their claims for entitlement to pension. The minister's proposal leaves it purely as a matter of discretion with the pension commission. We have no quarrel with the commission to-day; but there may be changes in the personnel; various things may occur, and those in charge of the administration of this act at some future time may not view matters in the same way. I suggest that it should always be clear that a man who served in a theatre of actual war can establish that he is suffering from a disability incurred during service, and there should be no statutory limit as to the date of application. As a matter of right, he should be able to advance his claim to entitlement; and I suggest that the very fact that from time to time we have found it necessary to set this date forward is ample justification for eliminating from the act any dead-line at all, thus leaving that right clear and unmistakable.


Frederick George Sanderson: With regard to the amendment which is before the committee, I would quote Beauchesne at page 165, citation 555:
No increase can be considered either of an existing, or of a new or temporary tax for the service of the year, except on the initiative of a minister acting on behalf of the crown.
I also quote from Bourinot, at page 407:
No cases can be found of any private member in the Canadian commons receiving the authority of the crown, through a minister, to propose a motion involving the expenditure of public money. No principle is better understood than the constitutional obligation that rests upon the executive government of alone initiating measures imposing charges upon the public exchequer. On one occasion, in the English commons the consent of the crown was given to certain formal resolutions proposed by a private member with reference to charges in courts of law to be defrayed out of the consolidated fund. It was thought, however, that any resolution placing a charge on the consolidated fund should be moved by a minister of the crown, and the more regular procedure was thereupon carried out. It was distinctly affirmed, however, that the member who proposed the motion involving the charge was within his right when he had the sanction of the crown, but it was generally admitted at the same time that it was better, as a matter of policy, that the proposition should emanate from a responsible adviser of the sovereign.
I therefore rule this amendment out of order.


Charles Grant MacNeil: If I may speak to the
point of order, Mr. Chairman, I submit that in respect of this amendment there is no proposed charge against the public treasury; it
is merely a matter of administration. The amendment does not suggest an additional charge against the public treasury.


Frederick George Sanderson: In giving my ruling
I do so because this amendment will increase the amount of money to be paid in pensions.


Howard Charles Green: If I may speak to that
point, Mr. Chairman, that is an extremely remote contingency. We are simply asking that the procedure in connection with an application for pension be kept in one stage rather than two. If this section goes through as it is presented by the minister, these men applying for pensions will have to obtain leave from the pension commission, and after that will apply for pension.


Frederick George Sanderson: I would point out that the ruling is not debatable.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Carried.


Howard Charles Green: No, it is not carried.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Mr. Chairman, I
move the following amendment:
That Bill No. 6 be amended by substituting for .the year 1942 where it appears in section 8 thereof the year 1952.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Order.
It is the same point, Mr. Chairman.


Charles Gavan Power: I have the same objection
as I had to the other amendment. I believe the committee ought to understand that what is being done under the amendment the government is proposing is to allow an applicant to make application until 1942. Under the present Pension Act he is precluded from making application after 1940. We propose extending the time for two years. In his amendment the hon. member for St. Paul's wishes to extend it for twelve years. I would suggest to the committee that sufficient unto the day is the good thereof. It is only an argument on the question of quantum.


Howard Charles Green: We are not moving the
amendment just to be funny.


Charles Gavan Power: It looks like it.


Howard Charles Green: There are many cases in British Columbia of fighting men who have been wounded and who realize that sooner or later they will have to apply for pensions. The great majority of them have no idea whatsoever that there is such a thing as a dead-line. If this bill were passed, after 1941 those men would have to apply to a pension commission in Ottawa to get leave to apply for pension. If the pension commissioners at
Pension Act Amendment

that time happened to be hard-boiled, or if at that time there happened to be a depression, then it would probably be just too bad for those veterans.
I would point out that about 75,000 Canadian veterans who were wounded on service are not yet drawing pensions. They are the men who are going to be faced with this hurdle. Why make a farce of it? The minister has said that a dead-line was imposed before and that it was lifted; that it was imposed and lifted again, and so on. Why not cut out the dead-line and stop 'fooling with the question? Let those fighting men know that if they can prove in 1945 or 1948 or 1950 that they are disabled because of something that happened in the war, they will receive their pensions, without having to jump over the additional hurdle of getting from the pension commission a permit to apply for a pension.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: If a man is going to be entitled to a pension to-day, to-morrow, five, ten or twenty years from now, then he is in fact entitled to that pension. I do not not see any reason why there should be any dead-line. Then, if the dead-line is placed at 1942, we shall be placing a handicap on the man who thinks he may have something wrong with him in the following years. He will be hustling, and thinking up some excuse to get in under the wire. A man either is or is not entitled to a pension. There is no reason in the world why he should be precluded from getting it. The amendment suggests that it should be extended to the year 1952, which would give some further time.


Mr. ROBICHAUD:: I do not see why the hon. member should be so much worried about the dead-line. Apparently on former occasions it has been changed, and I think if in 1942 it is believed that there are still men who are entitled to pension but who have not been able to avail themselves of the opportunity to apply, we can still revise the dead-line, and make it expire two or three years farther on.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Why should we have to revive it for two or three years? Why not leave it open?


Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: I think the question has been well explained by the minister. A committee. considered this matter and they thought it desirable to have a dead-line. As I have said, it would be an easy matter to extend the date; that has been done before.
Amendment negatived: yeas, 19, nays, 52.
!Mr. Green.]


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.
On section 10-Compassionate pension or allowance.
Grote Stirling: To what extent has this section been made use of?


Charles Gavan Power: In recent years, far more than previously. Page 71 of the report for the year ending March 31, 1938, gives the following figures:
Applications to commission prior to
March 31, 1937	 995
Pensions awarded	174
Awards not approved	821
Applications to commission, April 1,
1937, to March 31, 1938	 150
Pensions awarded	 50
Awards not approved	100
Since 1935 there have been some 150 awards under the meritorious clause, and prior to that there were something like ten. My hon. friend will see that there were fifty awards from April 1, 1937, to March 31, 1938, which would appear to have been the greatest number granted in any one year.


Howard Charles Green: Apparently under this revised section 21 the new appeal boards will not have the power to grant a compassionate allowance, whereas previously the court of appeal had that right. Would it not be wise to give power to the appeal boards to grant a compassionate allowance just as the appeal court could do?


Charles Gavan Power: I do not think we shall be
depriving anyone of much opportunity because the appeal court granted only three all the time it was functioning. I am hoping the appeal board will be more generous. The appeal board is really the Canadian pension commission sitting in appeal, so it will be made up of practically the same people.


Howard Charles Green: The inferior court, that is the pension commission with two commissioners, has the power under this section to grant a compassionate allowance, and yet the government is setting up a superior court with three members of the commission, a court which actually sees the man but which has no power to grant such an allowance. That does not seem reasonable.


Charles Gavan Power: I have no objection to allowing the section to stand in order that the matter may be considered, although I do not think there will be any great advantage to anyone.

Pension Act Amendment


Howard Charles Green: Even though the appeal
court granted only three compassionate allowances, that meant that three more men were taken out of trouble.


Charles Gavan Power: There was none last year. However, the section can stand.
Section stands.
On section 11-Date from which disability pension is payable.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Does this section restrict in any way the period for which retroactive payments may be made?


Charles Gavan Power: No, it is just exactly the same as it was.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 12-Date from which death pension payable.
Howard Charles Green: What change is made under this section?


Charles Gavan Power: This is to have the section correspond with the phraseology of section 27 of the act. There is no change in the meaning or the sense of the section.


Donald Alexander McNiven: Would the minister explain under what circumstances a widow or dependent child is entitled to a pension?


Charles Gavan Power: At the present time a widow of any soldier who dies as a result of his war service is entitled to a pension, if married prior to January 1, 1930. Since the war, 11,000 pensioners have died, and 6,000 widows are now in receipt of a pension. In order to be absolutely sure that the benefit of the doubt would be given to the widow of a soldier, it was enacted many years ago and continued in 1936 that if a man were in receipt of an eighty per cent pension, or over, that is, was in classes 1 to 5, no matter from what disability he might die his widow would be entitled to a pension. Perhaps this would be as good a time as any to state that before this bill finally passes, I propose to proceed to introduce legislation whereby the widow of a man who was in receipt of a pension of fifty per cent or more will be entitled to a pension, if married prior to January 1, 1930. I want to make it clear to the committee that this will not meet the current agitation of the widows by any means, and it is not intended that it should. The current agitation is to permit the granting of a pension to the widows of all ex-soldiers.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: Will it be retroactive?


Charles Gavan Power: If a man were in receipt of a pension of fifty per cent or more and died ten years ago, his widow would be entitled to a pension but not to ten years' back pension.


Howard Charles Green: Fifty per cent or more?


Charles Gavan Power: Classes to 1 to 11.


Mr. PELLETIER:: How many will that take care of?


Charles Gavan Power: Not very many. It will take care of four or five hundred, which is a small number compared with those who are now pressing the government to have their claims attended to. That is why I want to make it clear that it is not intended to meet that agitation in any way, shape or form. But it is intended to give assurance that the widow of a soldier who was in receipt of a fifty per cent pension or more will get the benefit of the doubt. I think it will give the benefit of the doubt in so far as it is possible to give it. If we were to go below that, it would no longer be a question of giving the benefit of the doubt, it would be a question of giving a pension on purely sympathetic grounds. If we stop at fifty per cent, I think hon. members can be assured that the country is endeavouring in so far as it can to give a pension to the widows of those who have died as a result of their war service.


Mr. LAWTSON:: It is now eighty per cent and over?


Charles Gavan Power: It is now eighty per cent and over; we are coming down to fifty per cent. The mechanics of working that out will perhaps be somewhat complicated. I suppose I shall have to proceed by way of resolution to move an amendment to the act. It will simply be an amendment to section 32, subsection 2, to change the words from "one to five" to "one to eleven." Should the house approve the resolution and the amendment, I shall endeavour to consolidate it with the present bill before it is sent to another house.


Howard Charles Green: Would the minister consider removing the restriction on children born after May 1, 1933?


Charles Gavan Power: I hardly think so. The
expense of that would be something like $850,000 annually.


Howard Charles Green: To provide for children who were born after May 1, 1933?


Charles Gavan Power: I have gone into that quite thoroughly, and I find that we would be taking on something like 17,000 children, even assuming that the fecundity rate would be
Pension Act Amendment

lower on account of the increasing age of our soldiers. The best figure I can get is 17,000 children bom since 1933.


Howard Charles Green: That makes it all the more unfair.


Charles Gavan Power: It did make it all the more unfair when they were cut off in 1933.


Mr. ESLING:: I wonder if under section 10 the commissioners would have discretionary power in dealing with the widow of a pensioner who was married after 1930. In this case it was a one hundred per cent pension. It is the case of a much married man, who was married in 1902 and deserted his wife and was divorced in 1907. In 1909 he married No. 2. He deserted her in 1917 while he was overseas. Two years before he was pensioned he married No. 3, representing himself as a single man. In 1922, No. 2 turned up, and he acknowledged her as his legal wife, although he continued to live with No. 3. Hon. members laugh, but it is not so very funny. It is a most unfortunate case. By No. 3 there was a child born, and the man in acknowledging No. 2 as his legal wife did assign a portion of his pension to her, although in the interval before she turned up, No. 3 had been receiving a portion of that pension. But after No. 2 came to light again, No. 3 was required to refund that portion which she had received. No. 2 died in April, 1931, and immediately after, No. 3 was again legally married.
Here is a case where No. 3 had lived with that man as his acknowledged wife, had married innocently, lived with him for twenty years and had a daughter by him, and it does seem that the lapse of a very short period made the situation most unfortunate. The man died last year, and the widow of course received no pension whatever. I would ask the minister if he would not give consideration to bringing in an amendment to cover such a case, putting the line at 1931 or 1932. That would remedy this case, which certainly seems to be a deserving one because it is quite apparent that this woman did not marry the man for the sake of the pension. He had represented himself as a single man, and after living with him for twenty years I think she deserves a pension, but because she was not legally married to this man until after January, 1930, she gets no pension.


Charles Gavan Power: Perhaps that is a case that might be looked after under the meritorious clause, section 21.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister give us an idea as to how many wives would be affected by removing the line now set at May 1, 1933? He said there were 17,000 children.


Charles Gavan Power: We estimate about 2,400 wives, but it is only an estimate, and even the number of children is only an estimate. It is based on the fact that in the twelve months prior to May 1, 1933, there were 4,041 children born to pensioners and placed on pension; in the next twelve months 4,655, and so on, and with an annual reduction of ten per cent for loss of fecundity to which I referred, we come to the figure of about 17,000 who would receive the additional allowance. The cost would be $850,000.


Howard Charles Green: I think that is a pretty high estimate.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I understand that there are about 2,000 pensioners' widows at the present time who are not receiving pensions.


Charles Gavan Power: Probably, yes.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: But is not the principle the same as with a pensioner? The pensioner is entitled to ten or twenty or thirty per cent or any other percentage. It is not a gratuity which is given by the Dominion of Canada, but something to which the pensioner is entitled by law. Now the minister is proposing to draw the dead-line at fifty per cent. I cannot see any reason for such a discrimination.


Charles Gavan Power: Does the hon. member want me to withdraw my proposal?


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I would suggest that these widows, whether the pension be ten per cent or any other per cent-and ten per cent does not amount to anything-are entitled to the pension just as much as the pensioner is entitled to his.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Has the minister any
statistics indicating the number of widows in cases where the pensioner died while the additional pension was payable-the total number involved apart from those above the fifty per cent.

Munich Agreement


Charles Gavan Power: I do not understand the question.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Apart from those above the fifty per cent, there are those who died while receiving pensions. Death is not the result of pensionable disability up to the time of death. The additional pension has been paid to the wife. Are there any statistics indicating the number in that category?


Charles Gavan Power: It might be somewhat
difficult to get them. I really have not those figures.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Cardin the house adjourned at 10.59 p.m.
Tuesday, March 28, 1939