1944-07-24

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the resignation of Louis Philippe Lizotte, Esquire, as member for the electoral district of Kamouraska. I have accordingly issued my warrant to the chief electoral officer to make out a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



WAR EXCHANGE CONSERVATION ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce bill No. 162, to amend the War Exchange Conservation Act, 1940.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce bill. No. 163, to amend the Special War Revenue Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
[Stage Direction]
Questions

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

Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	Was the munitions plant at Nobel closed
during this war?	_
2.	If so, what was the cost of closing this
plant ?	[DOT]
3.	Is the plant going into production again?
4.	If so, how much will it cost to get it into production?
5.	How many men are employed in this plant?
6.	How many women are employed in this plant?
7.	How many, (a) men; (b) women have been brought to work in this plant from each of the other provinces?


Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The cost of closing down and1 maintaining the Nobel plant during the shutdown, from the last week in February to approximately June 30, 1944, amounted to 8269,636.10.
3.	Yes.
4.	The cost of reopening the plant is estimated" at between 8240,000 and $250,000, all of which will be charged into the production costs of the production programme now being carried out.
5.	644 (as of July 20, 1944).
6.	50 (as of July 20, 1944).
7.	(a) Men-Quebec, 16; Manitoba, 2; New
Brunswick, 1.	(b) Women-Quebec, 5.


RADIO DEVICE &quot;WALKIB TALKIE&quot;
[Stage Direction]
Mr. DIEFENBAIvER:
1.	Have any contracts been let or purchases made by the Department of Munitions and Supply of the radio device known as the "Walkie Talkie"?
2.	If so, with what firm or firms, and where were each of such contracts let or purchases made, and at what unit price in each case?
3.	Were any requests to tender made to other firms? If so, to what firms?
4.	Were each of the contracts awarded after tender? If not, why?
5.	What price is being paid for said "Walkie Talkie" in each of said contracts?
C. Have there been any reductions in the initial prices? If so, give particulars.
Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Six contracts for a total of 21,926 units have been placed with Addison Industries Limited at cost plus 5 per cent with provision for firm prices after costs were determined. The price agreed upon for the first contract for 776 sets was $521.97 per unit after audit.
3.	A formal tender was called from Rogers-Majestic Corp. but at the time this store
(Mr. Usley.]
was required all radio manufacturing companies, including the aforementioned company, were working to capacity on other sets. It was considered by the engineers in charge of the development of this equipment that to place orders with these companies would disturb the production of other types of radio equipment which were urgently needed. Addison Industries Limited, who were not under contract for other radio material, were thus available and were chosen to make the "Walkie Talkie". Departmental engineers worked with the company and assisted in the development of the set. After development had been completed the first contract for 776 sets was placed on the basis mentioned in answer to question 2.
4.	No. For reasons given in answer to question 3, and in view of a request from the Acting Deputy Minister of National Defence (Army) that because of the development work done jointly by the department and Addison Industries Limited the contracts should be placed with this company, it was not considered feasible or wise to call for tenders. Many changes in design have since occurred, a circumstance more easily met by having the contracts with one firm rather than several.
5.	Ultimate prices are not known. Present contracts are being paid at a billing price of $505 per unit. Audits are being conducted with a view to arriving at an ultimate price and placing remaining contracts on a firm price basis if possible.
6.	Yes. See answers to questions 2, 3, 4 and 5.


DAIRY PRODUCTS-FLUID MILK PRODUCTION
Mr. LOCKHART:: 1.	What was the total fluid milk production in Canada for the years 1941, 1942 and 1943?
2.	Of this production what amount went into, (a) cheese; (b) butter; (c) condensed milk; (d) domestic consumption?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	1941, 16,555,433,000 lbs.; 1942, 17,488,-
366,000	lbs.; 1943, 17,516,918,000 lbs.
2.	(a) 1941, 1,720,191,000 lbs.; 1942, 2,332,-
049,000	lbs.; 1943, 1,846,070,000 lbs.
(b)	1941, 8,629,960,000 lbs.; 1942, 8,500,-
554,000	lbs.; 1943, 8,608,253,000 lbs.
(c)	1941, 486,510,000 lbs.; 1942, 553,995,000 lbs.; 1943, 588,496,000 lbs.
(d)	* 1941, 4,759,989,000 lbs.; 1942, 5,062,-
010,000	lbs.; 1943, 5,420,625,000 lbs.
^Domestic consumption fluid milk.

Questions as Orders for Returns


VICTORY AIRCRAFT LIMITED-GEORGE MORRISON
Mrs. NIELSEN:: 1.	Is Mr. George Morrison employed as personnel manager at the Victory Aircraft .plant at Malton, Ontario?
2.	If so, did the management of this plant recently grant Mr. Morrison a two months leave of absence?
3.	Did the granting of this leave of absence include the provision that Mr. Morrison should receive full or part wages during such two months leave of absence?
4.	Was Mr. Morrison permitted by the management of the Victory Aircraft plant to spend such leave of absence, wholly or in part, in political organization?
5.	If so, in the interests of which political party?


Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	Mr. George Morrison is personnel officer of Victory Aircraft Limited.
2.	No. Mr. Morrison recently spent two weeks (including travelling) in western Canada on company business visiting the commonwealth air training schools that are being closed, for the -purpose of securing skilled help for Victory Aircraft Limited. His itinerary took him to Edmonton, Regina, Calgary and Winnipeg during the period June 30 to July 16, 1944. He secured approximately 100 skilled mechanics and1 fitters from the schools that are closing.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	No.
5.	Answered by No. 4.


SELECTIVE SERVICE-PROSECUTIONS
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	How -many persons, by provinces, have been prosecuted for breaches of the National Selective Service Act for failure to take jobs to which they have been assigned?
2.	How many have been fined and imprisoned, by provinces?
3.	On what principle are persons of the ages of 16, 17, 18 and 19 convicted, and is there uniformity of fines in each province of Canada?
4.	Is any test made of the fitness of those assigned -to heavy manual labour as to whether they are physically fit for such heavy work and able to perform the task assigned?
5.	Do the courts look into the fitness of convicted persons ?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 

QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What has been done .by the government, since May last, to aid house building in the city of Toronto for, (a) soldiers' families; (b) civilians?
2.	What steps are being taken at the present time to relieve the very serious housing shortage in Toronto?
3.	Has the corporation of the city of Toronto, since May last, been requested not to ask for labour and building materials to aid house building?
4.	If so, by what official or -officials?


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCES
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many conferences have been held since 1939 between the dominion and provincial governments, or between departments of the same?
2.	What were the dates of each of said conferences, and the subjects of discussion and negotiation ?
3.	What agreements have been entered into as a result of -these conferences, and what legislation has been introduced in parliament or executive action has followed therefrom?
Motions jor Papers

4.	Have all such conferences and agreements entered into as a result been reported and the proceedings thereof published?


JAPANESE NATIONALS-NOBORU YAMAMOTO
Mr. REID:: 1.	Was one Noboru Yamamoto, a 21-year-old Canadian-born Japanese,, charged with refusing to obey an order of selective service officials and sentenced to a fine of $100 and costs or in default four months in jail?
2.	Did the said Yamamoto communicate with or write to the honourable Minister of Labour or to any of his officials on the matter?
3.	What were the reasons given by Noboru Yamamoto for refusing to obey the order of selective board officials?


MOUNTED POLICE-PERSONNEL, CANADIAN AND BRITISH BORN
Mr. WINKLER:: 1.	How many full-time men and women are there in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?
2.	Of these, how many are, (a) Canadian born; (b) native of the British isles?


OLD AGE PENSIONS
Mr. WINKLER:: 1.	By provinces, and by years since 1928, how many have received old age pension?
2.	_By years, what was the total amount paid by the federal government?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: For a copy of all correspondence, reports, ratings, telegrams, notices and other documents, in the possession of the Department of Transport and the civil service commission, in connection with the competition for the position of lighthouse keeper at lie Haute, Nova Scotia, since 1941, and the appointment, if any.



JAPANESE NATIONALS-NORBORU YAMAMOTO

Mr. REID:: For a copy of all correspondence passing between Norboru Yamamoto and the Minister of Labour or any of his officials in connection with selective service regulations.



ONTARIO HOURS OP WORK AND VACATIONS WITH PAY ACT

Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: 

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That on Saturday, the 29th July, 1944, and every Saturday thereafter until the end of the present session, the house shall meet at 11 o'clock a.m., and the order of business and procedure shall be the same as on Fridays.


Mr. GRAYDON:: May I ask the Prime Minister how many Saturdays he has in mind?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope there will not be more than one.


Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, the members of this group are not satisfied to let the motion pass without some explanation from the Prime Minister as to how many Saturdays it is anticipated we may be here. If this motion means that we are to sit Saturdays only for the purpose of handling routine business, that we are to sit one or two Saturdays in order to get the business of the house over with, we would be quite satisfied to agree to it. However, there is a lot of important new legislation coming in at the tail end of the session. The house is now sitting morning, noon and night throughout the week, and in order to familiarize ourselves with the new legislation, in order to try to understand what is going through the house, we require at least our Saturdays to catch up with our work. Those of ns who have to remain here all the time while the house is sitting find it rather hard. The business that still has to go through the house is of extreme importance, particularly the new legislation which must be scrutinized carefully if we are to understand what it is all about and protect the Canadian people in the process of its going through.


Mr. HOMUTH:: You are not the only one who is protecting them.


Clarence Gillis: You speak for yourself. I am asking the Prime Minister if it is possible for him to indicate what the length of the session will be. Otherwise we are not in favour of this motion to sit on Saturdays, morning, noon and night, in addition to working the rest of the week on the same basis. We figure that we cannot handle the work of the house as it should be handled.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to be able to give my hon. friend a precise answer, but when he asks me how much time will be occupied by hon. gentlemen opposite, I have to say to him that I cannot possibly

Saturday Sittings
tell. The length of the session, onee the sessional programme is announced, depends more on the opposition than it does on the government. Unfortunately I cannot say how much time hon. gentlemen may wish to take in discussing the measures that are before the house. What I would point out to the hon. member is that there will be no legislation coming down that I am aware of at the moment to which reference was not made in the speech from the throne and the introduction of which hon. members have had knowledge of since the beginning of the session, or one or two measures since announced, the purport of which they are already aware. It is quite true that some of the bills have not been before the house, but I think hon. members have a pretty good idea of what will be contained in the bills. I point that out to make clear that the government is not trying to do anything exceptional at the present time.
There are still estimates to pass. These have been before members of parliament since the beginning of the session. There will be nothing new under that heading except the supplementary estimates that may be brought down.
It has always been necessary in the winding up of the business of a session to have morning and Saturday sittings, and I have tried as far as I could to judge what the wish of the house might be and have the wish of hon. members carried out. I think it was July 24, just a year ago to-day, that the previous session of parliament concluded. It looks as though this session, which opened almost the same time in January of this year, is going to run on some little time longer. But I do believe hon. members hope- we may wind up the business without very much in the way of delay.
My hon. friend says, "we are here all the time," but I have not seen either his leader or the leader of the Social Credit group in this house for a week or more past. After all, leaders do count for something, or ought to count for something whenever reference is made to a party as a whole. I would say to my hon. friend that the disposition of the government will be to try to arrange Saturday business in a way that will be generally acceptable. We will not seek to bring on contentious measures on Saturdays, but I think we could get th'-ough a good deal of business in the way of estimates.
I hope there will not be any exception taken to this motion because I really believe it d^0' meet with the general wish of those who desire to wind up the business of this session as soon as possible.


Mr. ADAMSON:: This shows clearly the folly of the Prime Minister's motion which washed out all sittings on Wednesdays during the body of the session, thus losing much irreplaceable time.


Gordon Graydon: I would like to make a brief observation with_respect to what has passed between the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Cape Breton South. There is something in what the hon. member for Cape Breton South says with respect to the burden which those of us in opposition have to carry as well as the members of the government. This burden falls particularly upon those of us who have to be in our seats practically all the time in order to watch the legislation. It does not give us very much time to study the legislation.
Perhaps the Prime Minister would be good enough to consider this question a week from Friday. If at that time the house is not within a reasonable distance of concluding its work, perhaps we may have that Saturday off, having in mind the circumstances as they then are. I would have no objection to the motion going through on the understanding that the Prime Minister keep in mind the possibility of thus reviewing the position.
When the Prime Minister says that the length of the session is governed solely by the opposition-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not solely.


Gordon Graydon: I took it from his remark that he had the opposition largely in mind so far as the extending of the length of the session was concerned. I must say to the Prime Minister that the opposition needs a certain amount of time to give proper attention to the measures that come before the house. Having that definitely in mind may I point out to the Prime Minister that this is an unusual session from the government's point of view. I do not think since I came into the house there has been a session in which there were so many bills to be dealt with in the last few moments which had not been seen at all by the members of the house. The government will have to take some responsibility in that regard, because the opposition cannot be expected at the last minute to go through all the estimates and study important bills that have not yet come before the house and conclude the session within a few days. We have to consider that our job first of all is to criticize properly these bills as they come before us, no matter how long we may have to stay here to do it; but that does not mean of course that we should waste time in useless debate and repetition.
Farm Prices


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I take no exception to my hon. friend doing everything possible to protect the full rights of the opposition, and I agree that criticism is helpful. But I do take exception to the attitude that the government is always trying to put something over. The measures which the government is bringing down are obviously in the interests of the people, and I would hope that the opposition would join with the government in seeking to place these measures on the statutes as soon as possible.
As to a week from Friday, may I say to my hon. friend that in reviewing the situation I have been asking myself very seriously whether, if this session is going to ran on very much longer, it would not be better to adjourn over August and September and meet again in October and November. I do not want to do that, because I do not think hon. members wish to do it, but that is an aspect of the situation which will have to be considered in any review that may be made. May I say to my hon. friend, with regard to what may be done a week from Saturday, that sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient for the purpose of supporting farm prices during the transition from war to peace to introduce a measure to establish a board with authority to purchase through agents or otherwise, staple agricultural products at prices recommended by the board and approved by the governor in council, or to make such payments in respect of staple agricultural products as may -be necessary to bring average returns to producers up to the prices so approved, and to give the board such powers as may be necessary for the handling and disposition of products purchased; and further to provide for the appointment of sudh officers, clerks and employees as may be necessary;
To _ provide further that the governor in council may authorize from time to time payments^ out of unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund, up to an aggregate of two hundred million dollars, for expenditures under the said measure, exclusive of administrative expenditures; that there shall be a special account to which all expenditures under the said measure, other than administrative expenditures, are charged, and to which all receipts from the sale or disposition of agricultural products shall be credited, which receipts shall be available in the account for subsequent expenditures provided that the net realized refits in the account in any fiscal year shall e credited to the consolidated revenue fund [Mr. Gmydon.J
and any net realized loss in the account in any fiscal year shall be recouped to the said account from an appropriation by parliament for the purpose.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (for the Minister of Fisheries) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient for the purpose of supporting fisheries prices during the transition from war to peace to introduce a measure to establish a board with authority to purchase through agents or otherwise staple fisheries products at prices recommended by the board and approved by the governor in council, or to make such payments in respect of staple fisheries products as may be necessary to bring average returns to producers up to the prices so approved, and to give the board such powers as may be necessary for the handling and disposition of products purchased; and further, to provide for the appointment of such officers, clerks and employees as may be necessary;
To provide further that the governor in council may authorize from time to time payments out of unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund, up to an aggregate of twenty-five million dollars, for the expenditures under the said measure, exclusive of administrative expenditures; that there shall be a special account to which all expenditures under the said measure, other than administrative expenditures, are charged, and to which all receipts from the sale or disposition of fisheries products shall be credited; which receipts shall be available in the account for -subsequent expenditures provided that the net (realized profits in the account in any fiscal year shall ibe credited to the consolidated revenue fund and any net realized loss in the account in any fiscal year shall be recouped to the said account from an appropriation by parliament for the purpose.
He said: His Excellency the Governor-General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday
last the leader of the opposition asked about a statement in the United Kingdom bouse, by

Freedom oj Speech
Sir James Grigg, secretary of war, regarding the shooting of allied prisoners of war. Sir James Grigg's statement and the question of the leader of the opposition referred to the shooting of allied airmen who hadl been held as prisoners of war in Germany. The cases mentioned in Sir James Grigg's statement did not include any Canadians. The cases referred to 'by Sir James Grigg were in addition to the list of fifty allied airmen shot while prisoners of war, which Mr. Eden gave last month and which included six 'Canadians. I have ascertained that' there were no' Canadian airmen included in the supplementary list of allied airmen shot while prisoners of war which Sir James Grigg mentioned last week.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the c.-ders of the day:
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: On Friday last the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden) asked a question with reference to the dispute in the Halifax shipyards, I replied that as I had just returned to the city I would be glad to give him a reply on Monday.
The answer is that we are doing everything possible to avert a stoppage of work in this vital industry. The senior industrial relations officer of the department in the maritime provinces is at present in Halifax conferring with union and company officials with reference to their differences of opinion with a view to bringing about agreement between them.
I have received a number of telegrams from trade unions in the Halifax district suggesting that the company be compelled to implement the report of the conciliation board. Without saying anything that might prejudice the negotiations about to commence, I would merely state that neither the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act nor the wartime labour relations regulations which superseded that act requires the acceptance of recommendations in reports of conciliation boards by the parties concerned.	Trade unions	and
employer's organizations generally are opposed to any such step. I would say this, however, that the labour relations regulations compel employers and employees to bargain collectively, but do not obligate an employer to agree to the closed shop or check-off of union dues, which is the issue in this dispute.



FREEDOM OF SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The leader of the opposition on Friday referred to a matter which had arisen in the other house and which he stated had to do with the privileges of parliament. May I give my hon. friend an answer as to my position in this matter by referring to an old and well-known rule:
Whatever matter arises concerning either house of (parliament ought to be discussed and adjudged in that house to which it relates land not elsewhere.


Gordon Graydon: May I say to the Prime Minister that it was not with respect to a debate in the other house that I was referring. It was a case of a member of parliament having made a statement in parliament and then being dismissed because he had made the statement. That, in my opinion, constitutes an interference with the freedom of speech of members of parliament, and for that reason I felt that the Prime Minister and the leader of the government in the other house should have a conference with respect to the matter because I very definitely feel that in this incident there is involved an issue of considerable magnitude.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I say to my hon. friend that if he wishes to raise an issue of much larger magnitude he would ask this federal government or any member of it to begin to criticize the action of a provincial government. My hon. friend possibly forgets that the remarks to which he refers were made by an official of a provincial government which has responsibility for its officials. It has taken that responsibility and is exercising it in its full rights, and this house of parliament should be the last to seek to invade the jurisdiction of a province by criticizing the action of a government in relation to its own officials.


Gordon Graydon: The provincial government then is interfering with the right of freedom of speech, surely.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is my hon.
friend laying down the doctrine that a member of parliament can exercise freedom of speech to the extent of making any statement he pleases in regard to any situation of any relationship and thereby be exempt from consequences which may arise from sources other than in relation to his own parliament?


Gordon Graydon: He ought to be free to speak his mind.
Quebec Election


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: He did.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He did.


Gordon Graydon: He should be able to do it without penalties; that is the point.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. H. KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance based on a letter which I have received from the attorney general for Manitoba respecting order in council P.C. 3376, of May 29, 1944. This was the order in council that, amongst other things, raised the ceiling on the total income of old age pensioners. In the letter that I have from the attorney general he says that Manitoba has indicated1 its readiness to agree to the higher ceiling but that they are advised that it will not come into effect until the order in council has been published by this government in the Canada Gazette. I am told that they are, therefore, awaiting its publication. Could the minister tell me whether it has yet been published in the Gazette, or if not, whether it will be shortly?


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the order in council has been published or not. I cannot think of any reason why it should not be published. We have been negotiating agreements with all the provinces, and the effective date, according to my recollection, is to be April 1, or such later date as any province may desire. I will look into the question of publication in the Canada Gazette and advise my hon. friend. Perhaps I do not need to do so in the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall send the minister the letter I have from the attorney general for Manitoba, It includes a quotation from a letter written by the minister in which he said that the amendments to the regulations would come into effect on the date of publication in the Gazette. Fie said also that he would advise Manitoba when this had been done.



QUEBEC ELECTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: Has the Minister of Justice any report to make on the progress that has been

made in the investigation of statements alleged to have been uttered by Jacques Dumoulin in the Quebec election?
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): I am not having any investigation made as to the statement alleged to have been made by Jacques Dumoulin in the Quebec election, nor have I ever stated that I was going to.


Gordon Graydon: May I suggest that that is not quite a proper answer for the Minister of Justice to give me, because if he will look back in Hansard, he will see that he undertook to make an investigation with respect to this matter. In any event, I suggest that if he did not he should, and I ask him now to make such an investigation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Why don't you fight the Quebec election down there?


Gordon Graydon: May I say to the official interrupter that I have no objection-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Get some Tories down there.


Gordon Graydon: I realize that the hon. gentleman is attempting to move closer to the Cleric's seat all the time, but that will not help him very much.


Mr MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Get a few Tories down there.


Gordon Graydon: This is a matter that should be investigated and I ask the government to investigate it.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I believe there has been some misunderstanding because there are two Jacques, Jacques Sauriol and Jacques Dumoulin. I have stated on two occasions that the statements attributed to Jacques Sauriol were being investigated and they are being investigated, but I never made a statement with respect to words which were attributed to Jacques Dumoulin-


Gordon Graydon: Why not?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: -because I did not see anything myself in the newspapers which appeared to call for investigation. If the leader of the opposition says that something was reported in the newspaper which in his opinion would call for an investigation, I shall be glad to have the newspapers looked up and see if I agree with him.


Gordon Graydon: May I say emphatically that I ask the minister now to have that done because I am definitely of the opinion that there is something that calls for investigation there.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I will have it done.

Interim Supply



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
James Lorimer Ilsley: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1945, the sum of $23,425,286.45 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


Gordon Graydon: Perhaps the minister will make a brief statement as to exactly what this covers. There are exceptional circumstances which the minister will probably want to explain.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. This bill is to provide:
(a)	one-twelfth of all the items to be voted in the main estimates for the fiscal year 1944-45;
(b)	an additional one-sixth of the five services detailed in the schedule to the bill.
The proportion of one-twelfth for all services is intended to provide for ordinary requirements to the end of August.
The additional one-sixth for certain special votes is necessary owing to the seasonal nature of the services provided. The first three items provide for the expenses of the Senate and House of Commons which are heavier in the early part of the fiscal year. The other two items are to cover geological and topographical surveys where expenses of sending out field parties must be undertaken early in the season in order that projects may be completed within the few months suitable for this work.
Two bills each providing for one-sixth of all items to be voted in the estimates for 1944-45 have already been granted. These were to provide for requirements to July 31. There were no schedules in these previous bills as provision was made for a uniform proportion for all services.
The present bill provides for one-twelfth generally and an additional one-sixth for the special services referred to and is in exactly the same form as bills of previous years providing for similar services.


Gordon Graydon: Before the resolution
carries, and this is largely by way of notice rather than for the purpose of starting a debate, I see that the House of Commons general administration estimates and Sergeant at Arms are included in the resolution. I will not repeat what I said on Friday in that respect. I do not wish to criticize the department, but I think something should have been done with regard to those men who are on the protective staff in the matter of uniforms for the summer. That however was not particularly the reason why I rose. I desire also to give notice that before the estimates proper come down I should like to have some statement from His Honour, when he brings in his estimates, in connection with the House of Commons staff, as to why there is a difference between the rates of pay of those who seem to do similar work in the House of Commons and in the Senate. Perhaps that observation will cover for the moment what I have in mind.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Usley thereupon moved for leave to introduce bill No. 164, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1945.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Thomas Vien: Perhaps I may reply at once to what the leader of the opposition has said with reference to uniforms for the protective staff. There has been considerable trouble in obtaining material and in getting tailors to make the uniforms, but I can inform the hon. gentleman that the cloth has now been obtained and the officers are being measured and will have their uniforms, I hope, shortly.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2, 3 and 4 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Judges Act to provide that a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Exchequer Court of Canada or of any superior court, county court or the circuit court of the district of Montreal, may elect, in lieu of a pension or annuity as presently authorized under the said act. to divide his annuity so that his wife will receive an annuity equal to one-third thereof, and that if he should die in office that his widow will receive an annuity equal to [DOT] two-ninths or one-ninth, in certain cases, of his salary.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
Judges Act
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: With the general
principle of the resolution I think most hon. members are in agreement. Up to the present the situation in this country has been such that no opportunity under the law has been given to judges, many of whom have sacrificed large incomes in order to serve on the bench, to make due provision for their wives by the voluntary assignment of the allowances they would receive at the conclusion of a period of service. This whole matter brings into review the question of judicial reform and the necessity of facing this important problem at the very earliest possible day. Too often appointments to the judiciary in the past have been based on political services, and too often the qualification for appointment to the bench has been the fact that the applicant has been defeated for public office. I remember one occasion particularly when a member of the Canadian bar, referring to the system in the United States under which, with the exception of the supreme court and the federal courts the members of the judiciary are elected, said that there was very little difference between the system in Canada and that in the United States. That difference, he said, was that in the United States one had to be elected to be a judge, whereas in Canada the qualification too often was that one had been defeated two or three times.
I believe this resolution is evidence of the recognition by the Minister of Justice of the necessity of doing everything possible to ensure that the best possible men, eminent leaders of the bar, shall accept appointment to the bench. I do not believe there is one of us who was not distressed the other evening by the statement made by the minister that three outstanding members of the bar in Canada who had been offered appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada had refused because it would have meant too great a sacrifice. It is interesting to know that in the intervening seventy-five years since confederation, the salaries of the judiciary have more or less continued to fall lower and lower. The cost of living since confederation has gone up some 500 per cent, and during the same time the income of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada and those of judges of courts of appeal, after deducting present-day taxes, are lower by $1,524 a year than at confederation.
To-day, having regard to the ramifications of business and the expansion of commerce, it is even more necessary than it was at that time to have outstanding members of the bar accept appointment to our courts. The judges of the superior courts in the provinces receive

to-day, after deduction of taxes, $934 a year less than they did seventyffive years ago. May I add that it was recommended as far back as 1929 that consideration be given to increases of judges' salaries. There is no provision today for the survivors of judges after they pass on, and this resolution is to cover that.
Some may argue that our judges are exceptionally well paid but a comparison with the amounts paid in other countries will show that we in this country are endeavouring to enlist the best possible brains to the bench while giving the least returns. In asking men to go on the bench with the low return that is available to them we are in fact encouraging the appointment of members of the bar who are not outstanding, and in not having compulsory retirement of judges at seventy-five years we are continuing to penalize litigants in that they are required to have their cases tried before superior court judges a number of whom are unfit because of age and physical disability to perform properly the duties of their office.
I mentioned a moment ago the salaries in other countries. Let me compare the salary of the chief justices of Canada with judges holding similar or comparable positions in other countries. A judge holding a comparable position in England receives a salary of $30,000 a year, with $18,750 pension after fifteen years; in Scotland, $18,000; Irish Fret State, $15,000; Northern Ireland, $20,000; Australia, from $13,000 to $15,000; New Zealand, $11,500; South Africa, $13,750 to $16,250. A comparable position in the various states of the United States pays $22,500.
I think it will be agreed that the resolution which has been introduced is a step in the right direction. It recognizes the problem of assuring the best judicial appointments in every province. It recognizes the need of giving men who accept appointment to the bench the opportunity to make provision for their dependents, and the minister is to be congratulated on this forward step. I believe that a committee should be set up

it is too late to do it this session-at the next session to look into the matter of an age limit for the judiciary. Seventy-five has -been suggested in many provinces. If the best men are to be mobilized for the bench of this country; if we are not only to assure litigants but to convince them that they will receive justice when they go to our courts, early consideration must be given to reducing the age at which judges shall be retired from the bench. Personally I believe consideration should be

Judges Act
given in many cases to retirement, or at least the opportunity given to judges to retire, at the age of seventy.
Parliament often seems to fall behind the demands of public opinion outside of the house. This resolution represents the point of view that is held outside this house by laymen on every hand. It recognizes the need for judicial reform. It recognizes that everything must be done toward maintaining the highest possible standard of justice. These things can be secured only if the law makes such provision as is necessary to secure the best possible men on the .bench.


Mr. BENCE:: In my judgment this is a very worth-while and commendable piece of legislation. I am in entire accord with the principle of the resolution. The details we shall necessarily have to leave until the bill has been introduced, but in so far as it is a step in the direction of making the position of the judiciary more secure I am heartily in accord with it.
I have always believed that having regard to the importance of the administration of justice, affecting as it does not only property but in many cases the life of the individual, the judiciary should be entirely free from financial worries. This is a step which has been recommended by the bar and by the judges of this country for many years. I am glad indeed to see that the Minister of Justice has taken cognizance of the stand which has been taken by these bodies. Generally speaking, I believe that the income of the judges is too low in comparison with comparable positions. I agree with the hon. member for Lake Centre when he says that in order to attract to the bench the very best type of man we shall have to put the judiciary in a better financial position than it is at the present time. There are certain provinces in which the emoluments of office are attractive, and in which there is no difficulty in obtaining appointments, but in other provinces where the practice of law is more lucrative, I believe I am right in saying that the administration has much more difficulty in obtaining the services of the very best legal men.
The Minister of Justice mentioned the other day that he had a certain amount of difficulty in obtaining appointments to the supreme court; that he had approached three men who he believed would be admirable appointments, but in each case they felt that for personal reasons they could not accept. I take it that at least one of the reasons had to do with the financial position. If we are to attract the best type of men to the bench we shall have
to review this whole matter of judicial salaries in the very near future. There is no doubt that for many years the judges have been concerned about the position in which their widows and dependents would be placed if they passed on. It must be apparent to everyone that any occasion for such concern on the part of judges should be avoided if at all possible.
May I suggest to the minister that in addition to the measure which he has introduced to-day he consider doing something for the widows of judges who have passed on? In some cases they have been left penniless. Such a state of affairs should not have been allowed to exist. The minister has now introduced legislation which will help to avoid that in the future; but I suggest that he review the situation with the object of endeavouring to deal with the matter. I know of the widow of one judge who passed on a few years ago. In all fairness she should be placed in the same position as the wife who will benefit from this legislation.
I should like to commend this piece of legislation as a worth-while and forward step in so far as the judiciary and the bar of this country are concerned, and one which I believe will receive the support of the general public.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I should like to say a few words, so as to put clearly before the committee, and so that it may be reported to the country, the purport and effect of this legislation. Hon. members who have spoken know how fully I agree with everything they have said, with the possible exception of the suggestion that it is still a requisite for recommendation to the bench, to have been defeated in some political campaign. With that I do not agree, because as a lawyer I really do take some pride in the appointments it has been my privilege to recommend since assuming office, especially appointments to the high courts. I should like to say as much about the appointments to the county courts- and possibly I would be able to do so if I knew the appointees before their appointment as well as it has been my privilege to know those I have recommended to the higher courts.
However the situation at the present time is that we are still in a war. We have ceilings-we hope;-on the purchasing power of a dollar and also ceilings on wages and salaries. I fully appreciate the position in which those who are administering justice in this country find themselves, squeezed as they are between a salary that cannot be increased and a rate of taxation that takes from them a very substantial portion of what was looked
Judges Act

upon before as being only what they required to maintain the positions to which they have been appointed. But we are all feeling the pinch. Under present conditions, although I considered and discussed all the factors mentioned by hon. members, it was felt that nothing which would put a further burden on the exchequer in a time of war could be contemplated for the judges-because if it were done for the judges, a line could not be drawn. Only a few days ago we had a long debate over the situation as it applies to members of parliament, in which we discussed the amount fixed as indemnity to members, and the rate of taxation which prevails. We know however that pressure is upon prectically everybody, with the exception of those whose remuneration for ordinary labour has been improved; above that level the pressure is on everybody.
It is 'well known to hon. members that there is now pending before the national war labour board an application respecting a class .of very worthy participants in the industrial and economic life of our country. I refer to the brotherhood of railway employees. That application is for an increase, because of the position in which they find themselves, as a result of increased taxation. Now, if that brotherhood, and the members thereof, were to receive an increase, I think it would be necessary that it spread, because the whole of the workers of Canada might well say the railway employees are no worse off than other classes of Canadian workers or Canadian persons receiving wages or salaries. And if that did happen it would be the end of such control as it has been possible to maintain against inflation. I offer that as my excuse for not bringing in this bill at an earlier stage in the session. I wanted to wait until the budget was brought down, and to see if there was anything that could be done by way of relief, even though it did impose something upon the exchequer. When the budget was brought down, and when it was determined what the budget would be, it became apparent that nothing involving any substantial expense for the country could be done for the judges at the present time. I then suggested that what was already on the statute book, in the form of pensions, be left there, for those who would wish to take the benefit of it as it exists, and that there be an option given to judges who are .low on the bench, or to those who may be appointed, to say that instead of taking the who'e pension for themselves they would prefer a pension of two-thirds and they would have an allocation of one-third of it to their wives.
[Mr St. Laurent.]
The result will be that the exchequer will not in the long run bear any more-or should not bear any more than it is at the present time.
Just as an illustration: for the ordinary high court judge the salary is S9,000. The pension to which he is entitled on retirement is two-thirds of that, or $6,000. He will have the privilege of saying, "Instead of providing me with a pension for life of $6,000, provide me with a pension for life of $4,000, and provide my wife with a pension for life of $2,000. While we both live we will get $6,000, and when one of us dies the other will continue to receive his or her portion of the pension." In the long run it will work out in a way which will not, or should not cost the treasury anything more than the present system. For those who take the option, or those who say, or who will say between now and November 1, that they are bound by an irrevocable option that they wish to reduce their rights to two-thirds of what they are, leaving the other third for the benefit of their consorts, there will be a further provision that if the judge dies in office the consort will get one-third of what the judge's pension would have been at retirement-that is to say, two-ninths of what his salary was. That applies to all cases of the supreme court, the exchequer court, the high courts-that is, superior courts-or the courts of appeal in the provinces.


John George Diefenbaker: If a judge died at the end of four years' service, would a pension be payable to his widow?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes. If a judge is appointed and becomes incompetent to carry on his judicial duties, even after only two years of service on the bench, he gets a pension of two-thirds of his salary. That has happened within recent years, to the knowledge of the hon. member and myself. A chief justice of Ontario, the predecessor of the present chief justice, was in office only a very short time. But when because of his health it became necessary that he retire, he got a pension of two-thirds of his emolument. That is the rule which has been on the statute book since 1920 with respect to high court judges.
There is a difference in connection with county courts or district court judges or judges of the circuit courts of Montreal. If they have not been on the bench five years, they get only one-third instead of two-thirds. It is for that reason the resolution provides that there will be some cases in which the widow would receive only one-ninth instead of two-ninths.

Judges Act
In every case we say to the judge, "We are not going to take from you anything the statute now gives you. If you wish to take an irrevocable option, however, to be satisfied with only two-thirds of what the statute gives you, we wiii give the other third to your wife." That is all But, in fact, it will create a sense of some security for a great many of those who occupy judicial positions. Formerly it may have been possible for them to protect their families by taking out insurance. But I know from my own experience that since the present rates of taxation have been in force it is not possible to pay insurance premiums. Many cannot continue to pay them.


Gordon Graydon: And there is the other situation, too, that a judge may not be in sufficiently good health to get insurance.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Possibly; but that is something for which at the present time I do not think we can take responsibility. But we did appoint gentlemen to the bench who felt that they were going to be able to carry insurance for the protection of their families; and we did find ourselves forced into a situation where taxation which impairs that possibility for them had to be imposed. That being so, we say to them, "You are entitled to a pension; if you will be satisfied with two-thirds of it for yourself we will allow you to contribute the other one-third to your wife; if she outlives you, she will continue to receive it; if she predeceases you, you will have only the two-thirds; it is left to you to say." That is something about which each individual will be entitled to exercise his option. If he does not like it, he can continue with the terms of the statute as it is. On the whole I do not anticipate that there will be any real extra burden placed upon the exchequer.
The other matters are such that I hope they will receive from the Department of Justice, whoever may be there, and from this house whatever the majority may be, the most sympathetic consideration. I think it is in the interests of this country that the best possible lawyers be attracted to the bench. That was so in the past. It is only in the last quarter of a century that the economy of the nation has got into such a condition that a position on the bench ceases to be comparable with the position a successful lawyer is able to make for himself, even in the big cities.
I think the British system of recruiting judges from the practising profession is a good system. Whenever general conditions make it possible I think we will have to get back to
the situation that existed at confederation. As the hon. member for Lake Centre has pointed out, at that time the purchasing power of the dollar was five times what it is at the present time and the emoluments provided were such as to attract the most successful practitioners. I think it will be in the interests of the Canadian people to maintain the high standards of our courts of justice.
In conclusion I want to pay a tribute, which I think will be shared by all members of this house, to our judiciary. I want to comment upon the high regard in which it has been held by the Canadian people since confederation..


Alfred Henry Bence: Has any consideration been given to the suggestion I made with respect to existing widows of judges?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That was considered but it was not felt that anything could be done at this time, especially under our system of not interfering with the freeezing orders and so forth. It would be doing something new. I think the widows of judges who have passed on will find themselves with an almost irresistible case just as soon as conditions are such that some readjustments can be made. But I would not undertake to do this at the present time because if it were done it would be said that we were doing something for one class of people. We are just allowing the judges to make provision out of what they are entitled to under the present law. It would not be the same principle if we extended it. The judge who has passed on would not have had an opportunity of exercising this option, and no one can say how he would have exercised it. That is something that I think will have to be considered on the basis of its being a new grant. I cannot take the responsibility of asking parliament to make a new grant this year, but I do take the responsibility of asking parliament to say to the judges, " You have a grant and we will allow you to rearrange it."


Alfred Henry Bence: I agree that these widows
have an almost irresistible case, and I think it is almost irresistible at- the present time. The latter part of the resolution contains something new.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If my hon. friend will pardon me, I do not look upon it as something new. This is something only for the widows of judges who exercise their option between now and November 1 or within ninety
Judges Act

days after their appointment. They will make an option in writing reducing their own rights to two-thirds off what they would' otherwise have the right to receive and applying the other third to their consorts. I do not think that is anything entirely new.


Alfred Henry Bence: I agree with that, but the new part is that should a judge die in office an annuity of two-ninths or one-ninth will be paid to his widow. That is not the case at the present time.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That is only with respect to the widows of judges who will have exercised their options. If a judge upon appointment prefers to keep the situation as it is, and he dies in office, his widow would not be entitled to any pension. This pension of one-third will go only to the widows of judges who will have exercised their option at the outset, saying that their pension rights are to be divided between themselves and their wives.


Alfred Henry Bence: I quite understand that as a consideration that is required, but he is getting two benefits. First, he has the benefit of being allowed to continue one-third of his pension to his wife after he dies, provided that the pension is payable. Under this part a man may be in office only for a year. Should he die, his widow will be entitled to a pension for the rest of her life. I agree with that, but I would like to see the Widows of judges who have died within the last year- I would not confine it to a year but I take that as an example-placed in the position where they would receive a pension. After November 1 when a judge dies his widow will be in that position, provided of course that he accepts this proposition; she will receive an annuity for the rest of her life. I merely point out to the minister that I think it desirable that something be done for these widows. I understand that this one-ninth provision applies to county court and district court judges?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It applies to county court and district court judges who have not been in office five years. Under the act as it is, if a county court judge retires, having been in office for less than five years and being under seventy-five years of age, he cannot get a pension of more than one-third of his salary. If he has been in office more than five years, he gets a pension of two-thirds of his salary. One-third of two-thirds is two-ninths, and one-third of one-third is one-ninth.


Alfred Henry Bence: After November 1 a judge appointed to the bench would have to exercise that option?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Those who are on the bench at the present time will have until November 1 of this year to exercise this irrevocable option; those who are appointed will have ninety days to do so from the date of their appointment.


Alfred Henry Bence: Suppose a man is married after he becomes a judge; will he have the same opportunity?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Under the bill as will be submitted to the house he will have no opportunity to make any new option. Some cases may occur where it is desirable that something should be done, but I do not think there will be many. When a man is appointed he should realize his position and be able to make a decision as to how he wants his pension rights treated. If he thinks he is going to be married he can say, "I will be content with two-thirds of my pension and I will leave the other third available for the woman I am going to marry."


Gordon Graydon: I take it that you do not insist upon any declaration on that point.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No.


John George Diefenbaker: How many judges will be affected by this? Is it 250 or thereabouts?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There are 96 judges in Ontario, 53 in Quebec, 30 in Saskatchewan, 23 in Alberta, 25 in British Columbia, 40 in Nova Scotia, 13 in New Brunswick, and 6 in Prince Edward Island.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I feel that the terms of this resolution as outlined by the minister are sound and that it is a good piece of legislation he is bringing down. I agree too with the desire expressed with those who have spoken thus far in this debate that everything possible should be done to strengthen the position of our judiciary. It is of extreme importance that all care be taken in this matter. I support, as hon. members know, the suggestion that has been made a number of times that one of the means of strengthening the judiciary is that a compulsory retirement age be set throughout. On the question of salaries and pensions, however, I feel that there is one comment that should be made before we pass this resolution. In line with what I have just said, I am not opposed at all to improving the salary position or the

Judges Act
pension position of our judges, but it seems to me that we should maintain a .proper perspective in this matter. I observe from the estimates that there is set aside this year the sum of $311,466.64 to provide pensions for fifty-six judges now on the retired list. That is an average pension of over $5,560 for each of those judges. Considering the honour that has been theirs because of the positions which they have held, such pensions are not too bad: considering also the terribly small amount of the old age pension that we pay to others of our honoured citizens reaching the age of seventy, I feel that we should be giving prior concern to that other group of people. I support this resolution and the suggestions that have been made by hon. members, but I urge that in the matter of the old age pension, before we worry too much about those who are receiving over $5,560 a year on an average, we should be giving some real concern to those to whom we are paying only $300 a year or less.


Alfred Henry Bence: How many widows of judges are now living in Canada?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am sorry I have not that figure. I got it some two years ago and as I remember it, it was quite a large number. I would not venture, however, to mention a figure at this moment because my memory is not sufficiently clear. I went into it at that time and even had an actuarial calculation made as to what would be the cost of pensions on various scales for the widows of deceased judges, and it was a substantial sum.


John George Diefenbaker: Has any estimate been made of how much it is expected will come out of the treasury under this arrangement? Based on ordinary mortality rates there may be a considerable additional sum payable out of the treasury by reason of the introduction of this measure.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It is not possible to make any calculation with respect to the first portion. It is not expected to mean any burden over a period of years because the expectancy of life of the judges and of their consorts is about the same, so that that should just about even things up. As to the other provision, how many of the judges will exercise the option, we do not know. It is only those who will have made the option who will have created a situation whereby if they die in office their widows will receive the pension. It is not possible to make any estimate, but it was not looked upon by the treasury officials as being serious.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister seems to be under the impression that I was referring
to superior court appointments made by himself when I spoke of defeated candidates. That was farthest from my mind. But there have been quite a number of district court and county court judgeship appointments which singularly enough have gone to men who, at least having other qualifications, have been mixed up in'politics and been defeated in an election. I was not referring in any way to superior court appointments, for I know that in our own province, and I have mentioned this on a previous occasion, the appointments have been most satisfactory.
I would like to place two matters very shortly before the minister in regard to judicial appointments in county court and district court jurisdictions. The first is this, that no appointment should be made of barristers practising in the locality in which they will serve as judges. That is a very important matter. I find that wherever a judge is appointed to preside in a district court or county court in the town or area in which he practised law it takes a very considerable period of time before litigants appearing before him, who at any time had litigation on the other side against that judge while he was practising, are convinced that his judgment has not been influenced thereby. I am not saying that I know of any such case; far be it from me, but as I said, it is very important that people when they seek access to the courts should not only get justice but believe that they get justice.


Gordon Graydon: And that the judgments are handed down in reasonable time.


John George Diefenbaker: In that respect there has been .much improvement since the Minister of Justice became interested and let it be known that where there has been a delay of over two or three months in handing down a judgment the judge should endeavour at an early day to bring down his judgment. I have no doubt that the minister has in the past suffered from delayed judgments, and bringing about that reform he has certainly done something that has met with the approval of the bar society. Men are appointed who appear to have qualifications requisite for the bench; they' are believed to have the judicial temperament; but when they get on the bench there are some who occasionally display' a temperament far removed from what can be properly designated as judicial. I suggest that the minister have his law officers give consideration, in so far as the lower judgeships are concerned in any event, to the adoption of a system similar to that followed in Great Britain, where in most cases before a man is appointed to the bench he has had the opportunity of serving in a junior judicial position.
*>260
Judges Act

In Britain they have the recorder system: the Lord Chancellor assigns or appoints an outstanding member of the bar to preside over a series of assizes and courts, and it can then be ascertained whether or not he possesses the judicial temperament. I do not know to what extent that course could be followed in this country, but I believe that if something in the nature of promotions could be provided for it would greatly improve the judiciary; by which I mean, it would give the opportunity to outstanding men in the county and district courts to look forward to the day when they might expect to be given the opportunity to accept appointment to the superior court, and, if accepted, to be appointed. The minister has followed that course in two instances that I know of, one in Alberta, the other in British Columbia, and has elevated to the superior court, district or county court judges. I think it merits expansion, and certainly consideration to that end, for by both the appointments to which I have made reference the superior courts have certainly been enriched.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: I would add just a word in support of the views of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I am sorry that the Minister of Finance is not present at this discussion; were he here he might receive some useful suggestions regarding the payments of pensions to the citizens of Canada who must look to him for their payments.
I find that in the civil estimates the federal government appropriates this year a matter of $31 million to look after the 190,000 old people in this country who, after passing the age of seventy, must go through a means test and demonstrate that they have not been able to acquire enough to keep them in the evening of life, and that their dependents are not prepared to care for them, and under those circumstances the federal government votes around two hundred dollars per person to tide them through the evening of life. The Minister of Justice is much more generous than the Minister of Finance. His top ceiling in pensions for judges is a matter of $15,000 per year. It has always been difficult for me to understand why, when one honoured Canadian must have $15,000 a year as a pension, it can be expected that 190,000 must get by on an average of around three hundred dollars. I hope that when the Minister of Justice is in conference with his other colleagues in the government, particularly the Minister of Finance, something will be done to carry out the principles which are now being discussed by some legal members of the house in dealing with old age pensioners who must get their help from the Minister of Finance and from

the provinces. The total from the civil estimates is around thirty-one millions, from the war appropriation, around seven millions, and from the provinces twelve millions, to care for 190,000 of our honoured citizens-which is a very small amount compared with the terms in which we are speaking in dealing with the retiring judges and their ladies.


Alfred Henry Bence: I do not want to be put in the position of being misunderstood in this matter. We were discussing judges and judges' salaries and the position of the judiciary, and so far as the old age pensions of the country are concerned, I do not think the matter is relevant under this item. But I have never for one single minute indicated any belief that the old age pensions now paid are adequate. I have always felt that they were totally inadequate, and if the opportunity is given me I shall support as strongly as I can any move to raise the pensions to the old people of this country.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. St. Laurent thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 165, to amend the Judges Act (annuities).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. SUPPLY
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Bradette in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OP JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
Royal Canadian Mounted Police-
319. Land services-arising out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, enforcement of federal statutes generally, and other incidental expenses, $6,170,200.90.
John George Diefenbaker: There is a matter I want to bring to the attention of the minister, and I presume it can be brought under this item. It has to do with a complaint which came to me to-day with regard to the arrest of a clergyman at Balsam Creek, Ontario, on July 9 last. According to the information which various hon. members have received, one D. Morrison, a member of Jehovah's Witnesses, was presiding at the funeral of a Mrs. Gauvreau, and upon the arrival of the funeral cortege at the cemetery twelve officials, representative of selective service and of the police force, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the military police, without permitting the funeral to go on, questioned all those who were present as mourners and arrested the man who was acting as clergyman. This incident requires explanation.
Regardless of one's view as to the meritoriousness of the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses,

Supply-Justice
I am sure that none of us would countenance conduct such as this. I realize that in many cases which are brought to the attention of members of parliament there are elements of exaggeration, but this case has received a great deal of publicity and the facts have not been denied. I should therefore like to ask the minister whether or not the statements which appear in letters of complaint that have been received by hon. members are correct, and if so why it was deemed necessary to interfere with a funeral service in order to ascertain whether either the presiding clergyman or any of the mourners had complied with selective service regulations or were in fact subject to prosecution for failure to comply therewith.
I would appreciate it if the minister would advise the committee whether the facts as stated are correct, and if so, would give an assurance that there shall be no repetition of an incident of this kind.
Hon. L. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): I have not received the letter to which the hon. member refers, nor have I seen any of the publicity to which he has alluded. Perhaps I do not read all the papers as attentively as I should. The deputy commissioner tells me he has never heard of the incident, and I can assure the hon. member that neither the Minister of Justice nor the officer in charge of Royal Canadian Mounted Police headquarters here in Ottawa instructed that such things should be done or would countenance them if they were done. I know that throughout Canada the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, at the request of selective service and the Department of National Defence, are checking on compliance with national registration.


Humphrey Mitchell: And draft evasions.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: And draft evasions, also. But I would consider it quite improper to break up a funeral to conduct any such examination; and now that the matter has been brought to our attention I will ask that the officer in charge of the region in which Balsam Creek is situate make us a report.


John George Diefenbaker: I have sent over an original letter containing the complete story and the complaint.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I will see that headquarters here get in touch with the officer who is in charge of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in that locality. Certainly we will not have the public of Canada believe that we would countenance interference with a ceremony of that kind.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police-
320. Grant to the Chief Constables' Association of Canada, $500.
John George Diefenbaker: This is the grant to the chief constables' association, and I wish at this time to make a plea for consideration being given to the city, municipal and village policemen who are represented generally by this association. This matter has been brought to my attention by an official of the association, and I am very glad to bring it before the committee and the country and to speak on behalf of that great body of self-effacing men, the municipal policemen represented not only by this association but those in the villages and towns, whose fine record of public service we so often, lose sight of.
The situation to-day is that many of these men serve long periods without being able to look forward to any pension at the end of their term of service. In the United Kingdom, to promote efficiency and assure security, provision is made for a pension for policemen at the end of a period of time; and under the amending Police Act of 1906, a man who serves in the police force in England for more than three years is entitled to transfer from one police force to another, the total period to be counted for purposes of pension.
In this country	the	Royal	Canadian
Mounted Police have a		very fine pension	
system, the various	provincial police forces		
have the same, and	the larger		cities and
towns have similar	provisions; but in the		
country as a whole,	out	of 6,444	policementhere are over 1,900	for	whom no pension	scheme is available.	By ]	provinces	the recordis as follows:	With	Withoutpension	pensionscheme	schemeNova Scotia	63	107New Brunswick	70	43Prince Edward Island	20Ontario 	1,569	888Manitoba 	256	93British Columbia . ...	474	13Alberta 	193	57Saskatchewan	106	115Quebec 	1,766	591
The Chief Constables' Association of Canada have on more than one occasion passed a resolution requesting that such a scheme as is in effect in the United Kingdom shhuld be made applicable to Canada. It might be argued that this matter comes under provincial jurisdiction, and with that I do not disagree. But I believe that in order to assure the efficiency and the security and the integrity of these public servants, who have done so much for this country, consideration
Sup-ply-Justice

should be given to grants in aid on the part of the dominion to tihe provinces to enable the carrying into effect of a pension system on behalf of all municipal, town and village policemen for whom there is no pension provision now in effect. Efficiency would be promoted if the system followed in the United Kingdom were carried out in this country. These municipal police forces cooperate with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and with the provincial police force in the provinces in which they are established. That cooperation could be carried to the point where there would be increased efficiency if provision were made similar to that in effect in the United Kingdom, where an inspector of the home office each year conducts an inspection of all the municipal forces within the country, whether under his jurisdiction or not.
If any of the municipal forces are below the standard of efficiency demanded by the home office as reported on by the inspecting officer then that particular municipal police force is denied the pension provisions. I do not expect any final answer from the minister in regard to this matter. In view, however, of the definite increase in juvenile delinquency- true, there was a decrease last year-and the tremendous increase since 1930 of serious crimes, indictable offences and the like in proportion to population, few would object if by a small expenditure a greater control over the efficiency of these forces could be ensured. We could take one of the senior officers in the criminal investigation branch in Ottawa and put him in charge of this work. The result would be that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police would have charge of the prosecution of federal offences, the provincial police would have charge of provincial offences and the municipal police would deal with both subjects and with municipal by-laws; and all would have a common standard of efficiency. Efficiency would be maintained; security would be given to those forces, and it would be of great benefit in raising the standard of criminal investigation and prosecution in this country; in short it would go a long way towards *^curing a degree of equality in the efficient and effective administration of the criminal law by police officers that is not always secured.
I pass this suggestion on to the minister. It has been recommended on more than one occasion by the chief constables association. It is a matter that might very well be brought before the next dominion-provincial conference for report and consideration; for there

is nothing more important than the maintaining of the highest possible efficiency in the police forces of this country.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	The hon. member
himself stated that he realized the constitutional difficulties. The most that we can do is to express our feeling that no doubt it would be desirable that all those who are performing constabulary duties throughout Canada feel some security in that regard, but the initiative would have to come from the provinces. The best promise I can make to my hon. friend is that I shall secure copies of Hansard, relating to this debate and forward them to the several attorneys general of the provinces, calling their attention especially to the suggestions he made here to-day. We could not ask for the right to inspect the provincial or municipal forces. We have provided a college here where we receive those who wish to come, and we endeavour to give them some assistance in learning about the profession in which they are engaged; but we could not suggest to the provinces or to the municipalities that we should like the right to inspect their forces and to pass upon the sufficiency of the measures they are taking within their jurisdiction. If as a result of a provincial conference the suggestion came from them that for the purpose of achieving some greater degree of uniformity in the administration of law it would be desirable, I think there would be no objection raised from our point of view, in view of the relatively small amount of money that might be involved; because everyone realizes that though there are ten governments there is only one Canadian people, and that it does not matter very much from what purse public funds are taken if they are devoted to a good purpose. It is in the interest of the Canadian people that the thing .be done.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police-
Pensions and Other Benefits
321. To compensate members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for injuries received in the performance of duty, $11,749.16.
Mr. GREEN:: Will the minister explain the present .position with regard to pensions for the men of the force? I understand that the men who were retired some years ago get a smaller pension than men who have been retired more recently; also that all these pensions are subject to income tax. I believe that some hardship is being suffered particularly by the men -who retired some years ago.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It .may be that some contracts that were made years ago were made on a different basis from those that are being

Supply-Justice
made at the present time. When I started to practise law I got very much smaller fees for certain cases than I got just before I was promoted to this office. I have not heard of any hardship. There are some files that are never closed. There is not a month that I do not get communications in connection with someone from a new source, concerning a person who rendered medical services to the force years ago. I do not think that file is ever going to be closed, but there is nothing that can be done about it.


Howard Charles Green: I am not referring to special cases like that. I refer to the general constabulary. Is it not a fact that the men who were retired prior to a certain date get a smaller pension than the men who are being retired at the present time? The suggestion was made to me that these amounts should be increased so that all of the men would get the same rate being paid at the present time.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am afraid that each one has to take the situation as it existed during his time and age. I have no doubt that there have been improvements in the Pension Act, and there is now a portion of the Pension Act which provides that men may, by agreeing to deductions from their pay, have a pension provided for their widows and dependents. There was a time when that did not exist, but the application of these pension acts is really of a contractual nature. The man makes his contract and he gets what the contract calls for. I have not had any representation on cases of hardship. From time to time there are cases which do occur where special grants are made out of trust funds to members who formerly belonged to the force. These are made for very special cases. Special emergency cases arise. There are no longer any prizes or special payments to members of the force. All that goes into the fund. The fund also receives certain legacies, and there are sometimes grants made out of that for emergency cases. I have not had any representation about the insufficiency of the pensions which were accorded to those who retired from the service in earlier years.


Howard Charles Green: Would the minister have the whole question of the pensions investigated?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I will secure information as to the difference between pensions paid under the former act and those paid under the present act, but I should not like to reopen the present Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, because there are some provisions in it which I might not be able to retain if the whole act were to be reconsidered.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.
Mr.KNOWLES: Would the minister explain the basis upon which these awards are determined?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The first item is an award made to one R. Arcand, in consequence of a disability resulting from a fracture of the left fibula. The amount is $73 per annum. The next is an award of $365 per annum to F. L. Armstrong, in respect of burns to his left hand and leg, in which permanent disability was involved. I have a long list of these. If necessary I could put them on Hansard, but I do not believe they would be of general interest. These are pensions to persons who suffered injuries which resulted in permanent physical disability, and the amount of disability in each case was estimated and on the recommendation of the commission, the award was made as some compensation for disability incurred in line of service.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are these awards by
statute?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, they are voted each year. The system is that a recommendation goes to the treasury board, and if it receives approval, that approval is accepted as authority to include it in the estimates. It is so included each year, because there is no other fund out of which the amount could be paid.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
822. Pensions to families of members of the mounted police who have lost their lives while on duty:	.
Mrs. Mary Emma Bossange. $456.25.
Mrs. Margaret Johnson Brooke, $821.25.
Mrs. Margaret Cox. $410.03.
Mrs. Georgina Harrison. $676.50.
Mrs. Letitia Kennedy, $423.50.
Mrs. Nora Jean Massan, $300.
Mrs. Mary Miller, $667.38.
Mrs. Margaret Nicholson. $547.56.
Mrs. Catherine Mildred Ralls, $675.25.
Mrs. Doris Freda Sampson, $816.
Mrs. Amy Lillian Searle. $406.98.
Mrs. Madelaine Mary Shoebotham, $810.
Mrs. Eunice Wainwright, $002.50.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I note that the highest pension in any of the fourteen cases mentioned amounts to $68 a month, and four of them amount to only $38, or even less. These pensions are considerably lower than the ones we were discussing this morning. Then I am concerned with the fact that five of these pensions to widows of men who were members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are being reduced this year. What is the explanation for these reductions?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The reduction would be made through children dependents passing
Supply-Labour

the age of eighteen years. Each year a change comes about through that circumstance, the pension being computed on a basis of so much for the widow and so much for each dependent child under eighteen years. Pensions were based upon the period of service, and the amount of pay and allowances received by the men in question. These were pensions which were not payable under the general terms of the act, but were paid as compassionate allowances because of special conditions in which the families of these faithful members of the force found themselves as a consequence of the death of the breadwinners.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is such a compassionate allowance awarded in every case where one is left a widow because of her husband's having lost his life while on duty, but without any pension otherwise provided?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR 100. Departmental administration, $387,318.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Would the minister give us some indication as to the reason for the increase? I understand the civil branch of the department is growing rapidly. Perhaps the minister could explain the extension in the service.


Humphrey Mitchell: In the civil administration we have the Annuities Act, fair wages and conciliation, the Vocational Training Coordination Act, 1942, and the Technical Education Act. Payments are being made to all provinces with the exception of one, namely Manitoba, Then, we have the administration of unemployment insurance. I believe that covers the whole ground of the civil end of the department.
Obviously under war conditions there must be an expansion in those branches of the department which in some respects deal with the war situation. Then, I suppose there would be some restriction in other branches where the war has not had the same effect.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is a substantial increase for temporary assistants. How are they appointed?


Humphrey Mitchell: All the appointments pass through the civil service commission. Then of course appointments are made by order in council, the same as in other departments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is a matter under the heading of labour administration which I took u,p previously with the minister and

about which I should like to say something further at this time. I first raised this matter in the house on May 1 during the discussion of the minister's section of the war appropriation estimates. This has to do with the pension rights of employees of the Canadian Pacific Railway who were out on strike in 1918 or 1919. Following the discussion we had on this matter on May 1, I wrote to the minister on two occasions, on May 15 and June 16, and on June 20 I received a reply from the minister with which he enclosed a copy of a letter which had been sent to his deputy, Mr. MacNamara, by Mr. C. E. Stockdill, assistant to the vice-president of the Canadian Pacific. In other words, the minister did something following my representations both in the house and by letter; he referred the matter to the vice-president of the C.P.R. and received this one letter from Mr. Stockdill. I am grateful for the fact that the minister recognized that this was a matter in which he should interest himself, but I am not at all satisfied with the reply Mr. Stockdill made to Mr. MacNamara, nor am I satisfied to let the Minister of Labour allow the matter to rest there.
In order to discuss the matter properly I think I should quote to the committee the text of Mr. Stockdill's letter. It was written from Montreal on June 8 and addressed to the deputy minister of labour. Hon. members will note that in this letter Mr. Stockdill endeavours to slap me down for some of the things I said on May 1. I read the letter for two reasons: first, in order that I may point out wherein he has grossly distorted my statements of May 1, and, second, in order that I may reply to his arguments and endeavour to persuade the minister to work further on this matter. The letter follows: Dear Mr. MacNamara,
In the absence of the vice president, I am replying to your letter o,f May 19.
It is unfortunate, to say the least, that Mr. Knowles, who does not lack sources of accurate information, should have put forward, unwittingly perhaps, a version which is not borne out by the facts of the ease.
At page 25-02 of Hansard he repeats four times -in varying form the statement that when the new pension plan was set up in 1937, a change was made which -had the effect of creating a new problem for the men who left our service during the strike of 1919.
In point of fact no change was made by the 1937 revision of the pension rules, which affected in any way the position of the men concerned.
The provision of the pension rules that any one entering the service of the company after having reached the age of forty is ineligible to receive a pension has been in effect since July 5, 1904, and the provision that persons voluntarily

Supply-La hour
leaving the employment of the company when their services are required become ineligible, was incorporated in the original regulations when the pension system was inaugurated on January 1, 1903.
The effect of clause 8 (a) of the existing pension rules, which was quoted in part by Mr. Knowles, was merely to give effect to these two previously existing rules.
Since July 5, 1904, many men have left the company's service for reasons which seemed good to them, and have later re-entered the service, but only those who were under forty at the time of their last entry became eligible for pension.
Mr. Knowles statement at page 2505 of Hansard, with regard to the effect of section 122 of the railway act, also lacks candour. While the pension system was a voluntary one the company acted under this provision of the statute, a provision essential to the establishment of -a pension system of any kind; but when it became necessary to put the system upon a contributory basis the cooperation of the employees was invited and the pension rules were framed by a joint committee composed of four representatives named by the company and four chosen by the general chairmen of the organized employees, and the employees have enjoyed adequate representation on the pension committee ever since.
None of the men concerned had any grievance against the 'company at the time they left their employment, nor, if the statements of their responsible leaders are to be accepted, were they ignorant of the results 'of their action, since it has been repeatedly asserted by these leaders that the men were warned of the consequences, and of the fact that the strike contemplated was in defiance of existing law.
Yours very truly,
C. E. Stockdill, Assistant to the Vice President.
I happen to know Mr. Stockdill personally. I have every regard for him in his private capacity as a very fine gentleman, but I am amazed at the tone and substance of the letter which he saw fit in his capacity as an official of the Canadian Pacific to write to the government on this matter, a letter consisting of distortion along with evasion of the real issue. First of alt he makes the statement that on page 2502 of Hansard I said four times in varying forms that the provision of clause 8 was a new provision inserted in 1937. Anyone who refers to that page of Hansard will find that while it is true I referred four times on that page-and rightly so-to the new pension rules which were established in 1937, at no time did I refer to the clause requiring every employee to be under forty at the time of his last entry into the service as a new provision. What Mr. Stockdill and the other officials of the company know is that in 1936, 1937, 1938 and 1939 that clause, an old one to be sure which was hatched out in 1903 and carried over into the new rules, was the principal bone of contention between the employees and the
company so far as the new pension plan was concerned. It was at that time that the men were most conscious of what that clause would do to many hundreds of them by way of cutting down their pension rights in many cases and1 denying any pension at all to many others.
Mr. Stockdill points out that the pension plan as instituted on January 1, 1937, was the result of the work of the company with a committee appointed by the general chairmen representing the men. That too is true, but it is not the whole story. The men tell me that the committee that represeented the general chairmen agreed to the pension plan before it was referred to the general membership of the various unions. As a matter of fact a booklet setting out the new plan and bearing the date September 15, 1936, was distributed among the employees of the company several months before the plan came into effect, but its terms had been made final. When the general membership discovered what was the effect upon them of this new plan, which carried over into its provisions the rule contained in clause S, they really went to work on it. The matter was discussed in all the unions of the Canadian Pacific System whose members were affected by it, particularly in western Canada, and in due course they sent a strong delegation from the west to Montreal to wait upon their general chairmen. That was in 1937, just after the plan came into effect. They discussed a number of matters, but the major point that they discussed was clause 8, because the decision which the company had handed down to the men at that time was that their absence from work in 1918 or 1919 was to be considered as a break in their service. As a result of the representations made by the membership to their general chairmen in 1937, the general chairmen waited upon the company several times in the years 1937, 1938 and 1939, and I repeat that Mr. Stockdill and the other officials know that this question was the burning issue at that time, and it still remains a burning issue with many hundreds of the employees of the company.
I would refer the minister, in the hope that he will reconsider this matter, to some of the quotations that I placed on the record when I last discussed this matter on May 1, quotations which I do not need to repeat at this time except to point out that they made it clear that Mr. Coleman, who was then vice-president of the company, said to the men that the real stickler so far as the company was concerned was that they could not afford to pay these pensions. The men who waited upon the officials of the company at that time came away convinced, and so reported to their
Supply-Labour

general membership, that if the fortunes of the company were a little better there might be some hope of their getting these pension rights restored.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On what date is Mr. Coleman said to have said that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was in 1939. I put the exact date on the record when I spoke on this matter on May 1. I also pointed out at that time, and I think I should repeat it, that in the years prior to 1937 the pension scheme that was in effect in the Canadian Pacific railway system was what was known as a non-contributory system. The company therefore used the argument that the men had no equity in the funds of the company, while on the other hand the men recall that every time there was any discussion or negotiations with respect to wages down across the years from the early part of the century to 1937 the company always pointed out that there was this non-contributory pension plan. In other words, the men were told to remember that what they were receiving was not just the wages that they received in their pay envelopes, but certain pension rights that they would obtain on retirement. And so the men felt that they had an equity which they had built up by their work with the company over a period of years.
When Mr. Coleman says that it would cost the company $1,250,000 to restore those pension rights which the men had in 1919, I suggest he is admitting that the men had that much of an equity in the funds of the company at that time, and that what the company did was, by means of a technicality, to appropriate the funds which really belonged to the men.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is going a long way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend says that that is going a long way, but in my view that is exactly what the situation is.
Related to this whole question is the position which other employers took at the same time. I fear that I must repeat briefly at this point. In addition to the employees of the Canadian Pacific, I would remind the committee that employees of the Canadian National and a certain number of dominion government, provincial government and Winnipeg municipal employees were involved in the strike which took place in 1919. But these other employers, the Canadian National, the dominion government, the provincial government and the municipal government, have all completely disregarded the strike of 1919 as affecting the pension rights of their employees, leaving the Canadian Pacific the only large

employer which still holds participation in the strike as against its employees in the matter of pension rights.
When one recalls as well the land grants and subsidies and tax exemptions which the Canadian Pacific have enjoyed down across the years, and that is true in the city of Winnipeg as well, it seems to me that they are not playing fair with the country, and certainly not playing fair with the men, in continuing to deny to them their pension rights.
Mr. Stockdill in his letter suggests that in one portion of my remarks I lacked candour because of my references to the fact that the government should concern itself in this matter with a view to protecting the interests of the men. The reply that Mr. Stockdill makes to that is that the plan was set up by this joint committee and that the men now have adequate representation on the pension scheme. In other words, the presumption is that the men's interests are fully protected, and there is no need for government intervention. I have already pointed out that the first time the plan was ever brought to the attention of the men they were not satisfied with it because of this clause that was included in it, and immediately they voiced their protest against it. I would also point out so far as adequate representation on the committee is concerned, as suggested by Mr. Stockdill, that the committee consists of seven members, four of them being officials of the company and only three of them representatives of the general chairmen of the unions to which the men belong. Despite the fact that four constitutes a quorum there is never any danger of the general chairmen of the unions constituting a majority of a committee meeting, because when any of the officials of the company are absent from a meeting they have a right to appoint proxies to take their place. Thus the proportion of four officials of the company to three representatives of the men is maintained at all times.
I think it might be well for me to give an indication to the minister of the interest taken in this matter and of the support that I have received because of the representations that I have made to him. Since May 1, entirely apart from the representations that I had from my own constituency before I raised this matter, I have received many letters about this subject. Many of them have come from individuals who have been affected by the decision of the company, and many hare come from unions, official letters expressing support of the view that I took in the house, and expressing the earnest hope that even yet the government might interest itself in

Supply-Labour
this matter in such a way as to bring justice to these men. I would like to give the minister a list of some of the unions from whom I have heard officially in this matter, without bothering to indicate the number of personal letters I have received. Here is a list of the unions: Lodge 28, International Association of Machinists, Kenora, Ontario; Brotherhood of Express Employees, Local 28, Winnipeg, Manitoba; International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers and Railway Shop Labourers, Local No. 929, Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan; Jubilee Lodge No. 6, Brotherhood of Railway Carmen, of America, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Northern Alberta Lodge No. 648, Edmonton, Alberta. I also received a letter from the general chairman of that brotherhood. To continue:	Ladysmith Lodge No. 42,
Brotherhood of Railway Carmen of America, Calgary, Alberta; Local No. 155, Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Commercial Telegraphers' Union, Canadian Pacific System, Division No. 1, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Plumbers and Steam Fitters' Local Union No. 479, Winnipeg, Manitoba; J. M. Egan Lodge No. 223, Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Winnipeg Railroad Pipe Fitters and Helpers, Local No. 479, Winnipeg, Manitoba; and also from the Canadian Merchant Service Guild (Incorporated), Vancouver, British Columbia. I might say in connection with this last organization that not only are railway employees affected by this rule of the company but employees of the Canadian Pacific steamships on the west coast are also affected.
While I am referring to that perhaps I should tell the rather odd situation of a master of one of the Canadian Pacific ships out on the west coast who-I will quote from the letter directly-"had a three-day break in service in 1918 and was retired without a C.P.R. pension in the fall of 1943". This man was the captain of a Canadian Pacific vessel, and sailed for over fifty years under the red ensign and for approximately twenty-five years with the Canadian Pacific. "But here is something for Mr. Ripley." I am quoting further from the letter from the union:
Captain . . . now receives $20 per month pension from t'he United States government, under their social security laws, as he sailed on Canadian Pacific ships which run in American waters, but from his own company and country he receives absolutely nothing.
Because of a three-day break in service in 1918! In connection with these breaks in service in 1918. because a number of them at some of these other points around the west-Kenora,
Edmonton and some other places-were breaks in service in that year rather than in 1919, I will quote in part from a letter from a union in Kenora, Ontario:
There was another strike in 1918 of only a few hours' duration (about sixteen hours), and in this case no one was fired or rehired, so really no legal break in service, and when the grievance was straightened (in our favour) we were just told to carry on and there was to be no discrimination. To our surprise, in 1937-
I am calling this to the attention of Mr. Stockdill, because it was in 1936 and 1937 that this issue came to a head. In his letter he is only evading the issue.
-when the contributory scheme was introduced, four of our union members had application [DOT]papers returned as we were forty or over in 1918. No member of the International Association of Machinists here in Kenora rvent out in 1919.
I could go on with a great many letters from unions and from individuals showing the hardships which have resulted because of this decision. I could also read a letter from one official of a union, as a matter of fact a general chairman, who says that he is very much afraid that one of the reasons for retaining this clause 8 in the pension rules is that it enables the company to continue to hold a club over the men. Perhaps I should read part of this letter because it relates to something which is a burning issue right now:
It so happens that I was personally involved so quite naturally I had more than a passing interest in the question. I was one of a subcommittee set up to handle the matter with officials at Winnipeg, but we got absolutely nowhere. Although the reason given of continuing this injustice is one of inability to pay-
Mark you, this is a statement of one of the general chairmen.
-I am convinced that the board of directors are insistent of retaining the restrictive clause, so that the company will always hold a club over the head of the employees over forty who might be considering going on strike. Certainly [DOT]they would think twice before leaving their jobs, and if we are turned down by the national war labour board on applications for wage increases some such action might be considered.
So that in addition to the injustice of the whole situation and the suffering which many of these men are enduring because of the inclusion of that rule in the pension by-laws as they now stand, it is the feeling on the part of a good many that it is still there as a club to keep these men from exercising their right to strike if a situation becomes intolerable.
Apart from that, however, I plead the case of these cider men. I am not able to get the exact figure as to how many there are row 1	*
in 1937 there were 400 or perhaps 450 older employees of the company who were over

Supply-Labour
forty when they returned to work in 1918 or 1919, and as a result of that these 400 or 450 .are denied a pension of any kind. Some of them had worked 20 and 25 years before 1919. I have ease after ease here of men with 35 and 40 years of service but no pension because they were forty years or over when they returned in 1919.
In addition to the 400 who lost their pensions outright in 1937, there were 2,100 employees of the company who had some service prior to 1919 varying all the way from one year up to fifteen or twenty years or longer who were still under forty and would therefore qualifj' for a pension, but at a reduced rate, because they would get no credit for the time served with the company prior to 1918 or 1919.
I emphasize, as I said when I spoke on this matter before, that a great deal has happened to the thinking of our people in the years since 1919. I do not feel that the company was justified at that time in deciding that that was a break in service with respect to pension rights; certainly I do not feel they were justified in taking that position in 1937 when t.he new rules were brought in; but now I say they are even less justified in continuing this piece of injustice. The concept of social security has grown tremendously in the minds of our people. The realization that industry owes jsome responsibility to its employees is becoming more widely accepted. This company is *doing particularly well so far as profits are concerned. I gave the figures on May 1. I feel that as a matter of playing fair with the people of this country and playing fair with these employees the whole subject should be brought forcibly to their attention and they should be urged-if something stronger than that cannot be done by the present government-to reconsider this whole position.
I call attention again to the case I read from Kenora. I could cite others, if I were to take the time to read them, where the men claim that they were given verbal assurances that the break in 1918 or 1919 would not be counted against them. I have a letter from one union secretary who says that their union was very young at that time and they accepted the verbal assurances which were given to them as something which could be counted on. After the experience they had then, they would know better and would insist on getting it in writing; but they have not got it in writing .as far as 1919 is concerned, and therefore they realize that they are stuck. Nevertheless in a number of the unions they are of one accord, in their statement that assurances were given quite definitely at that time.
I am taking this matter up now with the .Minister of Labour because I see it as a

matter of labour relations. I might have taken it up under the Department of Transport, but that would imply that the government could use the whip hand in some way through its control over transportation. I prefer that it should be done through the Minister of Labour as a matter of labour relations. This company prides itself on its relations with its employees and wants to be on the best terms possible with them, but this situation rankles with hundreds of these men and is the cause of a great deal of suffering in many homes. Men are laid off at sixty-five and are denied their pension rights. The last time I spoke on the matter I pointed out that some of the men who go to the company after being laid off and appeal for a pension are denied it, and when they ask for something else the company says, "If your health were better we would give you an extension and allow you to work past sixty-five, but although we are sorry to learn that your health is such that you cannot continue working, we regret that we can do nothing for you." As I have indicated by reference to a long list of unions who have written to me on the subject, this is something that rankles in the minds of these men, and I submit that a strenuous effort should be made by the government to persuade the Canadian Pacific to reconsider the whole position.
As to the question of money, the profits are there, and the amount involved is really small compared to what the company is making out of the war at the present time. As regards the actuarial question, I submit that these men had an equity in the funds of the company in 1919 and that can easily be taken care of. I appeal now to the Minister of Labour to continue to use his good offices in this matter. I appreciate the fact that he did something but it was not enough, at least so far as he has reported to me. The indications I have are that he wrote this one letter, or had Mr. MacNamara write it, to the vice-president of the company, and he received a reply which was forwarded to me. That reply is not satisfactory, and the situation, to some of us at any rate, is such that we are not prepared to let the matter rest.
I raise the matter in this way not to hear myself talk about it. As regards the men in my constituency, many of whom work in these shops, I can say that they know where some of us stand in looking after their interests without our having to do a lot of talking about it. Rather, I raise the matter in the earnest hope that something will yet be done. It is action I am looking for. Despite all the failures in the past, and the adamant refusal of the company to reconsider the matter, I

Supply-Labour
believe that if the Minister of Labour were to tackle it with the same concern and the same earnest feeling I have about it, and really go after it, he could persuade the company to reconsider the whole position.


Alfred Henry Bence: I have not that personal knowledge of the situation that some people who reside in Winnipeg have, people who are able to make personal contacts with the general chairmen of unions, but representations have been made to me by groups of employees from Saskatoon, and from what I am informed I suggest to the minister that the case be given the utmost and the most sympathetic consideration both by the company and by the government'. I realize that this is a matter of labour relations, but I believe that in the interests of good labour relations the administration should intervene and do whatever is possible in the way of a solution, or see whether some solution can be arrived at.
The particular case referred to me is that of employees in the company who in 1918 went out on a sympathetic strike for a few hours. I do not know how long it was, but it was not more than a few hours; certainly it was not as long as a day; and that one act, whether advisable or not, has prejudiced their whole lives. Furthermore, I suggest that in these enlightened days, so far as labour relations are concerned, that single act if committed to-day would not have meted out to it the punishment that has been visited upon these men in being deprived of years of seniority. The punishment would not be nearly so extensive. The fact that this break in continuity was only of very brief duration would suggest, I submit, that the whole matter might be reconsidered, and the administration might point out to the company that there are other cases right across the whole north American continent in which men have gone on sympathetic strikes and afterwards, if I may use the expression, been forgiven for the fact that they made that break in their continuity.
I suggest also that the company itself would be very wise to give the matter the most sympathetic and earnest consideration. I believe that if it took the broadest and the most kindly and humanitarian view in an effort to reach a solution of the problem the company itself in the long run would profit and it would show that it had the interests of the men at heart and was desirous of obtaining the good will of the Canadian people as a whole.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am not going to speak for forty minutes, as did my eloquent and hon. friend the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He could have covered the ground in five minutes.
100-331	bevise


Stanley Howard Knowles: You could do the job itself in five minutes if you made up your mind to it.


Humphrey Mitchell: I will cover in five minutes more than he covered in forty, and more satisfactorily. He said he liked to hear himself talk, and I thought so myself. Now, the situation is clear. There was a strike in 1919-


An hon. MEMBER:: In 1918.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Both.


Humphrey Mitchell: At that time the Canadian Pacific had a pension fund, all the moneys of which were paid over by the company. There was a clause in the agreement or constitution of that pension fund which stipulated that the pension would be lost under certain conditions. These facts are clear. Since then, in 1937, they established a contributory pension fund. What my hon. friend is trying to do cannot be done, namely, to discuss and settle on the floor of the House of Commons grievances between employers and employees. The hon. gentleman read a certain number of letters from local organizations. We do not need to direct the local organizations in this country; they are quite conscious of their own powers and of their ability to negotiate for their own men. I did what my hon. friend wanted me to do. I wrote to the company. After all, the. Labour department, at least under the present system of society, does not make agreements with employees, nor does it negotiate agreements between employers and employees. If it can be of assistance it always lends that assistance. My hon. friend spoke about the composition of the present board of trustees of the pension fund of the Canadian Pacific. I think * that is best left to the labour organizations and to the employers themselves. There is no law against an expression of opinion on the floor of the house. But if I were to get a request from the parent organization-and as my hon. friend from Cape Breton South knows probably as well as I do, they always deal with their national organization in matters of this kind-I should be glad to endeavour to arrange a conference if possible between the company and the organizations concerned.
I wish to say this in conclusion, that my hon. friend does not hold the first mortgage on concern for the rights of the men in question as against any member of this House of Commons, irrespective of political party. Let that be clearly understood.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Just a word on this question; I agree that you cannot settle labour relations between a company and



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Sup-ply-Labour
[Stage Direction]
its employees by discussion in this House of Commons. What you can do, and what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is trying to do, is to build up a case for himself in the minds of certain people. Nevertheless I happen to know of one of those men, just one, who has been affected by the condition which has been detailed here. Because involuntarily he took part for a few hours in a strike in 1918 or 1919 he cannot look forward to participation in the old pension fund of the Canadian Pacific Railway when, as is now imminent, he reaches retirement age.
I suggest that the heads of the unions, who have more or less intimate relationships with the personnel direction of the Canadian Pacific Railway company-their relations with their employees are exceptionally good-be left to deal with it. The matter can well be left to them, and I have no doubt something may be done. I do not think it can be done here. I do not think it is part of our function to urge the Canadian Pacific Railway company, with the inadequate information which we must of necessity have here to-day, to do something which they have not heretofore done. I suggest that this is a type of case that should not reach the floors of parliament, much as I personally sympathize with one person and others who I know are very much aggrieved. What I have done in such a case is to make personal representation-I am afraid I have not been very successful; and I have to be content with that, as I think all of us should be. I do not think the estimates should be held up by matters of this kind.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I am not going to bother to reply to the insinuations that I had selfish motives in raising this question. If hon. members wish to say insulting things of that kind they may go ahead and do so. That is their business. I know, and the men in the Weston shops in Winnipeg know, why I am raising this question. Neither do I feel it necessary to argue with the hon. member for York-Sunbury as to the propriety of raising questions of this kind on the floor of the house. I point out first of all that every other avenue has been tried by the men down through the years. Lest any hon. members think that because this matter arose in 1918 and 1919 it is a dead issue, I can assure them that it is still the subject of a great deal of discussion and working out of plans in the unions whose members are affected.
I suspect that the suggestion the minister made a moment ago, which I welcome, namely, that if he received a request from the heads of the unions he would look into the matter, will bear fruit in suggestions along that line coming to him. In the remarks that have

just been made there was a suggestion that there is nothing that can be done here in this House of Commons or nothing that can be done by the government. If I feel that I can make a case for these men-let it be remembered that I am only a private member of the house, and a member of a minority party-and that case is sound and valid, as I firmly believe it is, I suggest that if the minister with the authority of the government behind would present that same case in his own words to the company, using his persuasive powers, it would have some effect. That is my reason for raising it here, in the hope that the minister will present the case as strongly as he can in taking the matter up with the company.
The last speaker suggested that we had inadequate information on the floor of parliament.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, I did not say that. I said that of necessity we could not have the full story.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Whatever the situation may be so far as certain members of this committee are concerned, certainly the full story is available to the Minister of Labour and to the government. I urge that he reconsider it in his own mind. I am not asking for a first mortgage on concern for these men. I do not care who gets the credit for it. The Minister of Labour can bring this about and get the credit for himself. That does not bother me at all. My concern is to see these men get a better deal. I have a vivid personal recollection of what this kind of thing means. My own father was a machinist for a street railway company. He suffered an experience similar to this which resulted in his having to take on a kind of work in his later years for which he was not physically fitted. It cost him his life. As a matter of fact that incident was the final cause in my deciding to throw my life into the work in which I am now engaged, and I am keenly anxious that this matter of the Canadian Pacific and the pension rights of these men be pursued as far as possible.


Humphrey Mitchell: May I say a few words to keep the record straight? I know my hon. friend does not want to mislead the people in this organization. Outside of the power of getting the two parties together the government has no power whatever except by passing a special act of parliament, and I know my hon. friend would not want us to do that because it cuts both ways. Let that be clearly understood. I do not want Hansard to go out to the organizations with the implication that the Labour department is not prepared to go as far as it possibly can under its present

Supply-Labour
legislative powers. I hope I shall never live to see the day when the kind of powers that my hon. friend has in the hack of his mind, probably subconsciously or instinctively, are brought into being. I hope I shall live to see the day when labour organizations and employees deal freely with one another without any pressure from the government concerned. When I say "pressure" I mean legal pressure that we see in effect in countries _ against which we are fighting at the present time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister endeavour to bring the two parties together?


Humphrey Mitchell: I am not going to take my direction from any member of this House of Commons-not yet-irrespective of the party to which he may belong. After all is said and done the Department of Labour is merely the umpire. If there is any request made by the company or by the parent organization involved I shall be quite prepared to set the conciliation machinery of the Department of Labour in motion, but not on the direction of anybody in this House of Commons-not yet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But if you will do it, that is fine.


Clarence Gillis: It seems to me that both the Minister of Labour and the hon. member for York-Sunbury have been anything but fair to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Humphrey Mitchell: I did not intend to be other than fair.


Clarence Gillis: Maybe not. I realize the weather is warm, pressure is great, nerves are strained.


Humphrey Mitchell: Not yet.


Clarence Gillis: But we sat here this morning for two hours and listened to a long debate respecting the necessity for pensions for judges. The hon. member for York-Sunbury has accused the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre of having selfish motives, and has suggested that the last named hon. member is looking for something for himself. Well, all during the discussion this morning it never entered our heads to say that the legal profession, who are so greatly interested in pensions for judges, were thinking of themselves. It never entered our heads, when the hon. member gets up to present his case, to take that stand. We take it for granted that he is honestly interested in the subject matter of his discussion.
I shall not prolong the discussion in which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre took part. It has been hanging fire since
100-331J
1919. There is no doubt that the hon. member for York-Sunbury, who was at one time a cabinet minister, had that matter presented to him both in council and out of council, and on all occasions on which it could be presented.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I deny
that, and I deny the implication. If it had come to my attention it would have been given every consideration. But as a private member of parliament I have had occasion to take this matter up-and I am not thanking the hon. member for Cape Breton South for the lecture he is giving me. I am quite prepared to take what is coming to me, but I want nothing from him.


Clarence Gillis: I have no intention of lecturing the hon. member.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What does he call it, then?


Clarence Gillis: I do say, however, that he
who throws lefthanded swipes around the house should be prepared to take them back.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I will take what comes to me.


Clarence Gillis: I had risen to speak about
labour relations, and I shall be as explicit as possible. My chief quarrel at the moment is with the national war labour board, which has to do with the administration of order in council P.C. 9384. I am disappointed with the machinery therein set dp.


Humphrey Mitchell: What my hon. friend is saying does not come under this item.


Clarence Gillis: I am speaking about labour administration.


Humphrey Mitchell: No; the administration
of labour relations comes under the war appropriation estimates.


Clarence Gillis: My conception of the Department of Labour is that it administers everything in the field of labour relations.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We can
discuss anything under it.


Clarence Gillis: That board has to do particularly with administration in connection with wage orders. For example, if a dispute occurs between a union and the board, that matter then comes back to the Department of Labour, to the minister and his conciliation officers, so that it may be ironed out. As I started out to say, I am disappointed with the machinery set up. As I see it, in the field of wage control, and the enforcement of decisions by conciliation boards, under the present administration we are practically back where we
Supply-Labour

started in 1940. I think no progress has been made. There are so many of these boards today that one is almost boarded in. I am safe in saying that the average member of the House of Commons, who does not make it his business to keep track of all these boards, has very little realization as to just what the machinery is.
Under order in council P.C. 1003 a court of industrial relations is set up-or at least it is supposed1 to be a court. They have delegated much of their authority, by agreement, of *course, to the different provinces. I believe Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Manitoba and Ontario have agreements whereby the provisions of P.C. 1003 are within the control of the provincial boards, and the provincial departments of labour are given authority to administer that particular order. This has to do only with union certification.
That is not so bad, but the board that administers order in council P.-C. 9384, which is the wage order, is the one with which I am quarrelling at the present time. I said a moment ago that we are just about where we were in 1941, and I make that statement because of a specific case in my own province at the present time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that the board presided over by Mr. Justice Archibald?


Clarence Gillis: Yes. I refer to the situation at the Halifax shipyards. In those shipyards we are reaching exactly the same situation we had in Kirkland Lake in 1941. For the past two years the union in those shipyards has endeavoured in every possible way to negotiate a contract carrying with it a maintenance of the membership clause. About two years ago I had the privilege of sitting in and talking the matter over with some of the representatives of the Canadian Congress of Labour who were in Hailfax at that time. I thought the matter was settled, and that it was just a matter of negotiation for a week or two. I was under the impression that the contract would have been signed, the union recognized, and any difficulty in the future wiped out of the way. Within the last week however it has been brought to the attention of the house, both by telegram and through the medium of the press, that the Halifax shipyards are still fighting for that maintenance of membership, and the right to check off for union dues. Three yards are affected, and they are in exactly the same position that they were in two years ago.
Serious repercussions can develop from this situation. The yards at Halifax are important yards, for many reasons. There was a threattMr. Gill is.]
ened strike there this morning-or a strike vote was to be taken.. As was mentioned* by the Minister of Labour at noon to-day, one of his conciliation officers is in there. But what concerns me is that I do not think this conciliation officer is going to be able to do much. If it could have been cured by conciliation, the matter would not be in the position it is in to-day. A conciliation board sat in this matter. That board, appointed by the government, recommended union recognition and the maintenance of the membership clause in the agreement. That matter is in the hands of the Department of Labour, and the department has the recommendation of its own board. The company takes the position that it is not going to grant that concession. Worse than that, only last week Mr. Nelson, the manager of the company, called a public meeting and addressed his employees for the purpose of telling them he had no intention of granting the concession which had already been granted by the conciliation board appointed under the terms of the order in council.
What now concerns me is that we are heading for the post-war period*. If we are correctly informed, it looks as if at any time we might expect a cessation of hostilities so far as the European war is concerned. This will mean that a large percentage of our boys and girls will be returned to Canada. They will have to have jobs. If the employers of Canada are concerned only about themselves after three or four years of war; if they are allowed to flaunt the department's instructions and throw them to one side, then I do not look forward with any optimism to the post-war period. There must be more cooperation shown by those who operate industry.
The shipyards are an important part of the economic set-up of Nova Scotia. There has been trouble in the shipyards right across Canada, from Vancouver to Nova Scotia. Unless we are prepared to enforce the laws we lay down, there is not much use in putting them on the statute book. I do not care who likes that or who does not like it. We have gone along for twenty years in this country pleading on our knees with the employers. I think since the outbreak of the war the federal government have been extremely fair to the employers; they have been patient and long-suffering. A great deal of injury has been done the present government because of the failure on the part of industrialists generally to appreciate what the government has been doing for them.
I hear some of my hon. friends across the way muttering. They ask, "Would the C.C.F. enforce those laws?" Yes, the C.C.F. would

Supply-Labour
pass laws in the interests of the Canadian people and they would enforce them. If the situation were reversed, if the employees in Halifax were taking the position now being taken by the employer, what would happen? We know what would happen. We know what happened in Kirkland Lake when they exercised their rights. Mitchell Hepburn organized his gestapo and sent his hussars in there and used force against the workers of Ontario. The greatest weapon the employer can hold over the head of the employees is the economic weapon.


An hon. MEMBER:: What happened?


Clarence Gillis: What would you call a man on horseback, with a gun in his hip pocket and a club in his hand? If that is not using force, then I do not know what force is. I have been through a lot of it. I have seen the cavalry, the infantry, the artillerj', the horse-guards and everything else they could put in under similar circumstances.


Richard Burpee Hanson: When?


Clarence Gillis: In Nova Scotia.


Richard Burpee Hanson: When?


Clarence Gillis: On four occasions, in 1922, 1923 and 1925. They barbed-wired that province. It is not a new thing to me. I know it is pressure. It is economic pressure; it is intimidation. That is the club they hold over the worker at all times. We have been told there must be a new heaven and a new earth, that we must win the peace, that our boys and girls must be guaranteed employment. If this is to be the attitude of private enterprise after four years of government, if the authority of the government is not recognized, then I am a little sceptical about the kind of setup we are going to have in the aftermath of the war.
The Halifax shipyards should not be in the position in which they are to-day. Three thousand workers are threatening to walk out from essential jobs because the employer refuses them the right that is granted to others, the maintenance of their organization and the right to the check-off. That is the only issue in dispute. It is not a question of wages, it is a question of maintaining their organization.
I am in hopes that the conciliation officer will be able to come to some understanding with the shipyards in Halifax. A board sat on this question, weighed all the evidence and made a recommendation. If there is not sufficient weight in that recommendation to cause this company to be reasonable and fair with their employees, then I do not see how Mr. Pettigrove is going to fare any differently in a general discussion.
There is general dissatisfaction in Ontario with the functioning of the board. I am not going to go into this at any great length. I have a memorandum in my hand and I have no doubt the minister has received a copy from the United Automobile Workers of America setting out three or four experiences that they had with the board. One point of dissatisfaction is that they consider they are not being fairly treated by the man who is supposed to represent labour on that war labour board. This particular letter gives specific grievances and I have no hesitation in giving it to the minister. It is dated July 12, and one paragraph reads:
As far as the U.A.W. is concerned we are prepared to launch a public campaign in the newspapers on the policy of the government under P.C. 9384 and also the unbearable and the dictatorial attitude of the personnel of the board. When the General Motors boys were turned down they requested an interview with Mr. Bell and were told by Mr. Bell that he had no responsibility to the organized workers of Canada to inform them as to why the board had turned down the request of the union. While these board members may be required to take an oath, nevertheless this oath should not restrain them from giving workers, whom they represent, information as to the reasons for being turned down when such representatives must inform their respective memberships of such reasons. If they are not allowed to do it unofficially, then it should come as an official [DOT] pronouncement by the board as to reasons why refusal to grant certain concessions are made.
I am in accord with that, and I think the minister will be also. A union official is placed at great disadvantage when this occurs. I think it can be said that since the outbreak of the war the organized workers of Canada have done a great job under great difficulties in keeping plants operating when grievances have arisen. The workers prepare their case and state their reasons why they think there should be adjustments. Their officials appear before the board, which considers the case and passes on the evidence. All they get back is a short note to the effect that the case has been dismissed. They are obliged to go back and discuss the matter with their membership and they are placed at a great disadvantage. I think one thing the minister could do is to see to it that when the board makes a decision in the matter of wages on a presentation by any labour organization, the reasons for the decision should be set out.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is the decision given after a full hearing at which both parties are present?


Clarence Gillis: That is right.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Are briefs filed?

Supply-Labour


Clarence Gillis: That is right. Briefs are filed by the union, and they have another complaint in this connection. When they prepare a brief for presentation to the war labour board, either provincial or national, they are notified that they must submit a copy to the employer concerned. On the other hand, the employees never see a copy of the employer's brief until they come before the board, national or regional.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why not?


Clarence Gillis: That is the question. The employees have to submit a copy of their brief to the employers, and the employers should be obliged to do the same thing in order that the union may have an opportunity of studying the position that is taken by the employer, if and when they meet the board.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Is that a provision of the regulations, that the union has to submit a copy of its brief to the employer, but the employer has not to submit a copy of his brief to the employees?


Clarence Gillis: I do not think there is a regulation, but it is a matter of practice.


Humphrey Mitchell: If I may interject, it cuts both ways. If the employees make an application, a copy of their application is sent to the employer. If the application is made by the employer, he of course sends a copy of his brief to the representatives of the employees.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not sure that I quite understand it yet.


Clarence Gillis: The U.A.W. and the United Steelworkers have made a lot of presentations, and they claim that while they must file a copy of their brief with the employer-


Richard Burpee Hanson: When they make the application?


Clarence Gillis: Yes, but that they never see a copy of the employer's brief until they come before the board.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister has suggested that if the employer makes the application, the unions get a copy of the employer's brief which they can answer.


Clarence Gillis: That is probably right.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am just trying to find out what the procedure is.


Clarence Gillis: Most of the cases coming before the board to-day are joint applications on behalf of the employer and the employee.
[Mr R. B. Hanson.]
But in the case of the Halifax shipyards dispute, and in the case of a few tough employers who hold that no one has the right to talk to them about wages, the employers do not do anything that they are not compelled to do, and both the U.A.W. and the United Steelworkers-and they are both large organizations-make the complaint that they are not granted the same right as the employer to see a copy of his brief.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The
minister suggests that they have. I just want to understand the procedure.


Clarence Gillis: My information is that the employees are not granted that same right. At least that is one of the complaints contained in this memorandum.
I do not want to labour this matter. I merely bring to the minister's attention the fact that I think there could be considerable improvement in the administration of order in council P.C. 9384, and secondly I believe there is a lot of overlapping and a lot of duplication of work between the provincial boards and the national boards. I think there should be a general overhauling of the machinery to find out exactly where we fit in the matter of jurisdiction.
That is another matter on which I could cite case after case that causes friction between the regional and national boards in Ontario. I do not suppose it is so bad in British Columbia; in Nova Scotia our problem in the field of labour relations is pretty well solved, as we have well-defined machinery ; we strike a snag once in a while like this Halifax shipyards dispute. But in Ontario labour is still organizing and it has a terrific job to do. They are at one and the same time carrying on this organizational work and administering the affairs of the unions that are set up. There is a lot of duplication with respect to the boards functioning in Ontario. That is the complaint that I have. I am going to give the minister a copy of this memorandum because it contains specific suggestions to cure some of the disabilities in the administration of order in council P.C. 9384.


Humphrey Mitchell: I will tp^ to answer some of my hon. friend's questions, although perhaps not consecutively because he has covered a lot of territory in a short time.
There are two national organizations, the war labour board and the national labour relations board. The complaint of my hon. friend was not against the war labour board, presided over by Mr. Justice Archibald, but against the wartime labour relations board,

Supply-Labour
which deals with such questions as union recognition and conditions of employment, which have no bearing on the cost of the article which comes out of the factory.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that the O'Connor board?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes. It is the same system that they have in the United States, where they have one board to deal with one thing and another board to deal with another.
My hon. friend spoke of the provincial boards. We have in the provinces what we call regional boards. We think that the people of the locality concerned know their own problems better than we can possibly know them in Ottawa. I am a great believer in decentralization. I do not think we can carry on in any other way. Last year, for instance, the national war labour board and regional boards on wage cases, dealt with 43,000 applications, and eighty per cent of the applications were made by the employers. I hold no brief for the employers, of course.
The labour relations legislation is a comparatively new thing. It was brought into being after hearings by the national war labour board. First we drew up a rough draft and invited the provinces to discuss it with us because, under the British North America Act, they have jurisdiction in these matters in peace time, which we all hope to see again, and when that day comes I assume that the provinces will wish again to exercise that jurisdiction. We met with the nine provinces, discussed this rough draft, decided on certain fundamentals, and then drafted another document as a result of our deliberations. That document we sent to all the provinces, to employers' organizations, and to employee organizations. We thought we had done a pretty good job on this document. Later we received suggestions of 170 amendments which were proposed to be made to the document. I think some credit is due to us that eventually we fashioned an instrument that received the endorsation of both employee and employer organizations in this country and the endorsation of all the provinces. I only wish that we could have as much agreement on other questions concerning this dominion as we had on this question concerning labour relations. But as I have said before in this house, when you draft a document, even though it may be agreed upon by all the parties concerned, it is something like composing a symphony. It looks all right on paper, but you do not know what it will sound like when it comes out of the instruments.
By law, employers are compelled to recognize bona fide trade unions. The question raised in the Halifax shipyards dispute does not come under the national war labour board, but under the wartime labour relations board, because it deals with conditions of work and the certification of trade unions. They have had an agreement in the Halifax shipyards since 1941. They had one in 1942, and again in 1943, and they would have had an agreement now except that the employer will not agree to the check-off and to what you might call the closed or union shop.
In the drafting of this legislation respecting labour relations, suggestions were made-the U. A. W. was one party that suggested it-that the reports of boards of conciliation should be binding on both parties, but that was one of the few organizations that agreed to that principle. The Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, the Canadian Congress of Labour and the employers' organizations were opposed to that principle.


Mr. HANSON (YorkdSunbury):: The principle of compulsion?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes. The opinion has been expressed by the President of the United States that the closed shop should not be permitted in time of war. That is a matter of opinion. My hon. friend might have one view, the hon. member for York-Sunbury another and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre a still different opinion.


Clarence Gillis: The issue at Halifax shipyards is not the closed shop.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is a check-off and a form of closed shop. I am using that language because it is the language generally understood by trade unionists and other people in this country. That is the only issue in dispute. It it not a question of wages nor of seniority or working conditions. The only question in dispute is the closed shop and the check-off. That is streets apart from the Kirkland Lake situation. I sat as chairman of the commission on the dispute there, and I felt that if we could have used a little more patience we could eventually have got an agreement in Kirkland Lake. There is absolutely no comparison between the conditions arising out of the Kirkland Lake dispute and this particular dispute in the Halifax shipyards.
I think I have covered just about all the points raised.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: May I ask the minister a question?


Humphrey Mitchell: Any question.
Supply-Labour


Karl Kenneth Homuth: In regard to the brief presented by the workers in the Halifax shipyards, were there only two points in dispute, or were there other points upon which they had agreed?


Humphrey Mitchell: They reached agreement on all points except those two, according to my information; there remain just the closed shop and the check-off. As long as men are men and women are women there will always be industrial disputes.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: And home disputes too.


Humphrey Mitchell: But I think this might be truthfully said, that we have advanced the span of a generation in the last three years in the matter of labour relations in this dominion. We have at least established basic national principles as regards the conduct of employers and employees, as regards the right to join a union, for instance. We have probably gone farther than any other country in the united nations. There is only one country in which this principle is in vogue, and that is New Zealand, where by law you have to join a trade union. That is not done in Great Britain or the United States or Canada. Many people would have grave fears for our national life if such a step were taken. However, that is a matter of opinion. I am hopeful that the leadership given by this government will be maintained in this regard when the war is over. Whether we like it or not, the impact of the conclusion of the war is going to make it necessary that employers and employees sit down together and in a rational way work out their difficulties, their industrial disputes, so that this country may be able to maintain its position industrially in competition with other countries-that competition will come, whether we like it or not-and so that the tremendous industrial structure we have erected can be maintained after the conclusion of hostilities.
I think I have covered all the points my hon. friend has raised. If not I am sorry.


Clarence Gillis: There is just one thing I want to say. When the minister insists that a check-off for union dues-or "maintenance of membership" is how they have it written in their contracts-can be interpreted as a closed shop, it is misleading.


Humphrey Mitchell: I said, a form of closed shop.


Clarence Gillis: The general public get the impression that if the workers in the Halifax shipyards are granted that maintenance of membership clause in their agreement it means that every man who seeks employment in the shipyards will be compelled to join the union. That is not true.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think the minister went that far.


Clarence Gillis: That is what a closed shop implies. The system they are looking for in the Halifax shipyards has been in vogue for at least the last thirty years among the mine workers of Nova Scotia.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is the check-off?


Clarence Gillis: Yes, and it is at present operating in the steel workers union right across Nova Scotia. In years gone by the mine workers and steel workers foolishly fought it; to-day they would not change back. In the United States, I believe in practically every trades union organization which functions, they have exactly the arrangement which the Halifax ship workers are looking for at the present time. It does not constitute a closed shop. I believe the only closed shop in Canada -and I do not think those concerned would want to get away from it-is Tip Top Tailors' set-up, where before you become an employee of the company you go to the union officials. Their arrangements in that organization are very harmonious. I do not suppose there is a set-up in Canada which works more closely together and where the employees think as much of the employers. But certainly that is not what the workers in the Halifax shipyards are looking for. Under the closed shop, for which the miners of the United States fought for years, though I do not believe they ever reached that objective, I understand it is compulsory to join the union before you are employed. As it exists to-day in the arrangement the Halifax shipyards are looking for, after you are in employment-


Humphrey Mitchell: After you have been working for thirty days you join.


Clarence Gillis: If you want to. There is no compulsion about it. I know that in Nova Scotia as late as 1937 there were men employed in the mines who were not paying dues to the United Mine Workers. Your union officials will discuss the matter with you from time to time, but there is no compulsion; it is entirely up to yourself. I know from personal experience that is one of the greatest assets that an employer can have in establishing harmonious relations with his employees. There is not any compulsion attached to this particular arrangement which the Halifax shipyards are looking for.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Are there
any miners working in the larger mines of Nova Scotia who are not members of the United Mine Workers? '


Clarence Gillis: Yes Within the last few
months I saw an article in one of the Nova

Supply-Labour
Scotia newspapers indicating that one of the union locals in the Sydney mines area were endeavouring to make their membership in that area one hundred per cent. That would indicate that there are some men who were not paying dues to the union. There would not be many, but there would be some. In most of the collieries they are organized one hundred per cent.


Mr. McIVOR:: I was going to ask the
hon. member for Cape Breton South a question just before he ended his speech. We can judge things only by what we see and what we know. It may be that they are different in Cape Breton from what they are in Fort William, but I have had some surprises as I study labour and try to find out the calibre of the labour boards which are helping the minister to administer his department. The first surprise I had was that the majority of the men with whom I talked had a union card in their pocket. I remember a time in this house when we wanted the best brains of Canada to run this government, and I think we got them, and some of the best brains of Canada have come from the labour unions, and these men have been helping the minister to manage the department; and while I am biased in favour of labour I think everyone will agree that they have done a mighty fine job. I can remember the Kirkland Lake situation very well, and I did not like it. I had some criticism. Somebody told me that there were six hundred men at Kirkland Lake who had not taken out their citizenship papers. I said, "That may be true, although those people have their rights too. If a man in this great country has not enough 'sand' in him to spend his five dollars to go and take his examination and become a citizen of this country, I think he has got to take some bumps." The minister has had to stand a good deal of criticism because of what happened at Kirkland Lake, but he has weathered the storms splendidly.
I am not concerned about Cape Breton or Kirkland Lake, but I am concerned about Fort William. It appeared as though when a man dismissed at Fort William for union activities was out he would remain out, but that was not so. Why? Because his union members stood behind him and because the member for Fort William stood for fair play. I went to the Minister of Labour and told him, "Unless this is settled there will be a strike, and I shall help to lead it." Then what happened? There was a change in the management of that live concern, the Canada Car and Foundry, better known as the "car works." We saw that the man was placed back in the
car works and there was no strike, thanks to the Minister of Labour and his advisers, and the Minister of Munitions and Supply.
One thing has come out of this great big boiling pot of labour criticism and labour legislation which is a credit to all Canada, and that is the labour code. I do not think the hon. member for Cape Breton South will find much fault with that labour code. Collective bargaining is in force, and with it all you have holidays with pay. This code is accepted by members in all parts of the house, or I believe so at any rate. I know I accept it willingly, and an effort is made to enforce it in many of the provinces, not only in connection with war industry but in every other kind of industry as well.
Some people have wanted to replace the minister with someone else. Whom would they suggest? He is a man who has come up from the ranks of labour. He has stemmed the storm in many labour unions and has come through and he stands now as the champion of labour. I say we ought to say to the Minister of Labour in his present capacity, "Well done, my boy; stick to your job. You are winning out."


Mr. LITTLE:: May I ask the hon. member
for Cape Breton South a question? When he said that policemen had walked up and down intimidating people, I did not quite catch what he said. What did he mean by the remark he made in that connection?


Clarence Gillis: I am glad the hon. member has brought that up because I forgot to mention it before the minister made his reply. The minister claimed that there was no similarity between the Kirkland Lake dispute and this one. The similarity is that in both cases the employers refused to recognize a mandate from the conciliation board. The board, having sat, made a recommendation and the employers refused to recognize its award.


Humphrey Mitchell: The Kirkland Lake affair was more fundamental than the recognition of a union.


Clarence Gillis: In answer to the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Little), what I meant was this. At the time the miners of Kirkland Lake went on strike, they were complying with the laws of Canada as laid down by the Department of Labour. They went through all the machinery, took a strike vote, and legally they were permitted to strike. No strike is effective without a picket. That is recognized as part of the game, and while they were peacefully picketing the plants and

Supply-Labour

the mines, the mounted police, the provincial police, and special police that were organized by Hepburn were sent in.


Walter Little: What does the hon. member mean by the special police organized by Hepburn?


Clarence Gillis: There was an organized special police force sent up from Ontario.


Walter Little: I thought the hon. member was referring to what he described some time ago as the gestapo.


Clarence Gillis: It was an organized special police. Now, any time a government in Canada starts organizing a special police force for the purpose of taking away the rights of workers granted them by law, you have something similar to a gestapo.


Walter Little: They were not there to take away the rights of workers but to protect the workers as well as everybody else. They were there to protect the workers and other people as well. That is what they went there for.


Clarence Gillis: The men were peacefully picketing.


Walter Little: And no one ever stopped them.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member is not referring to the dominion government?


Clarence Gillis: No, the government of Ontario. They interfered with the picketing. Their presence was not necessary and they were a source of intimidation, and I say that action of that kind on the part of any government, in this day and age, constitutes in my opinion all the rudiments	of
totalitarianism.


Walter Little: I saw pickaters and policemen walking together up and down the street. Do you call that intimidation?


Clarence Gillis: I am not quarreling with the policemen as individuals. Policemen must earn their living. I am quarreling however with the purpose for which they were sent there by the government of Ontario.


John George Diefenbaker: I have a question arising out of a letter I received the other day from a soldier who was overseas. This man was working in a factory in connection with which there was no union at the time he joined up for overseas service! What he wants to know is this. If during his absence the closed-shop principle has been adopted in this factory, will he be entitled to reinstatement in his position under the mandatory provisions of the statute in that regard respecting the rights of soldiers on their discharge?

He was a non-union man at the time he joined up. This is a matter that is of very considerable interest, and that interest is more than academic. I would ask the minister to elucidate it.


Humphrey Mitchell: That can be done in a couple of words. No trade union agreement can take precedence over a statute. Whether that man belonged to a union or not he would be entitled to all the rights and privileges which are his under the law, and he can come back to his old job regardless of whether there is a union there or not.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Though there might be a good deal of difficulty in enforcing his rights, that is the law.


Humphrey Mitchell: We have not had any difficulty up to now.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
101. Annuities Act, $273,186.
Karl Kenneth Homuth: Do the agents who sell annuities work on a commission basis?


Humphrey Mitchell: The sales are made on a commission basis.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Nearly all of them.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I have had a number of complaints regarding agents who go out to sell annuities, particularly to women. I do not say that they deliberately misrepresent the facts, but they do misrepresent the annuities to the people to whom they sell them, because these people are given to understand that this money is always available. The result is that on several occasions we have written to the department asking whether some payment cannot be made, whether this money cannot be got back, and the reply is no, that when they reach a certain age the money is available. I think that the agents who sell annuities throughout the country should be told very distinctly that they must explain the whole situation more clearly than they do, because if sales are made on a commission basis it is only too clear that the more annuities they sell the more money they will make.
There are other cases that arise. I know of two or three. I took up one in particular with the department but nothing could be done. I know of cases that other members have taken up with the department. I know of a woman who paid in for many years, or she might have paid in a lump sum, but she had not yet reached the year at which she would start to collect her annuity. She developed cancer. Other cases may develop some other

Supply-Labour
disease which would perhaps in the course of a short time carry them away. They need the money. So long as they were healthy they could work and make a living, but here they were with a disease which in the course of two or three years is going to end their lives and they have no means of livelihood. There is no cash surrender value of the annuity. They cannot get it until such time as they start to collect on it or death intervenes. The result is that these people suffer severely. I do feel that our annuities act should be so changed that in special circumstances money is made available to those annuitants who may need it because of illness or something unusual arises.


Mr. MARSHALL:: The whole question of annuities was under review by a committee of this House of Commons not very long ago.
I do not know whether that precludes me from making any remarks with respect to it, but it is not my intention to go into the matter as fully as I should like to. However, I ask the minister if the officials of his department have read the discussion which took place with the auditor general, and is it the intention of the minister to review this discussion and 'bring about a better operation of the act The amount asked for in item 101 is $273,186. This amount is made up substantially of commissions to agents. According to the last auditor general's report, $157,500 were paid to those agents. One agent received $6,358, another S6,032 and another one $5,047. Those were the agents receiving over $5,000. Let me say that I do not object to the government engaging in this type of work. I think they should. But the point that I wish to emphasize is that in my opinion these costs should be included in the cost of the annuity instead of the people of Canada being asked to underwrite them. In addition to that, I submit that the scheme is actuarially unsound, in that from year to year we are called upon to pay out of the consolidated revenue fund a sum which has never fallen below a quarter of a million dollars in the last ten or fifteen years. On one occasion, in 1937-38, it was necessary to transfer from the consolidated revenue fund to the Government Annuities Act a sum totalling almost $9,000,000.
I am not going to discuss the matter any farther, because I felt that the public accounts committee would bring in some sort of recommendation to the minister with respect to the operations of the annuities act in the future. But it is evident to me that we shall not be able to complete our work this session, and in consequence we shall not have an opportunity of bringing in any recommendations. Is this question under review by the depart-
100- 332i
ment at the present time? What amount of money will have to be transferred from the consolidated revenue fund in the year which has just closed in order to keep the fund solvent?


Humphrey Mitchell: I should like to dispose of the questions asked by the hon. member for Waterloo South while they are fresh in my mind. With reference to the attitude of the agents in the annuities branch, we have had, in the last two years to my knowledge, no letters of any description of the tenor indicated by my hon. friend. With reference to the surrender value of the policy, they can take up at any time the annuity that they have paid in.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The
amount of the annuity.


Humphrey Mitchell: They can take up the annuity, the actual annuity.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They
cannot get their capital.


Humphrey Mitchell: They cannot get their capital back; that is quite true.
The hon. member for Camrose raised the question of commissions. The commission* that are possible to agents selling, annuities are one-third1 of those of the average straight line insurance company. The commission is one per cent of the amount with a maximum of $50 on any policy. In the past there have been arguments back and forth on the actuarial basis of this branch of the Department of Labour. It has carried on on a four per cent basis. My hon. friend1 has argued that it should be lower than that. That is a matter of opinion between my hon. friend and those who have probably made a deeper study of this than I. When those annuities were instituted years ago their purpose was to encourage thrift. In those days we had no Old Age Pensions Act and none of the social legislation we have to-day. It is estimated that the approximate amount necessary this year will be $50,000.


James Alexander Marshall: I am not objecting to paying the agents their commissions, but I submit that the amount which is paid1 and the expenses in connection with the operation should1 be charged into the cost of the annuity instead! of the people of the dominion being asked to shoulder them. It is past the stage now when it may be looked upon as a substitute for old age pensions. These annuities are being purchased by individuals who can well afford to pay for the cost of them; therefore I submit that the cost should be included in the cost of the annuity from year to year.
Sup-ply-Labour


Stanley Howard Knowles: The last time I was on my feet the minister and I were crossing swords. This time I wish to speak in support of this phase of the work of his department. With respect to some of the comments that have just been made I wish to say that I feel that this type of legislation is particularly desirable and that it has an important part to play even in the future when we may have other more extensive forms of social security legislation. It is a good idea to encourage people to provide for their old age, and even to encourage them to provide a little more than the social security laws of the land' may make available to them. To that extent it seems to me it is a socially sound principle- whether it is actuarially sound or not-to include an element of subsidy in the making of these annuities.
I would emphasize the fact, in reference to the last statement made by the hon. member who preceded me in this debate, that there is a maximum amount of annuity that any person can purchase under this provision. That maximum is $1,200 a year. In other words, it is not a scheme which makes it possible for the well-to-do people to provide themselves with large annuities in their advanced years, on the basis of a government subsidy.
I consider the scheme a most desirable one, and I have only two comments to make. The first is this: I wish the government would advertise it a little more. The advertising it is putting out is very good, but-


Humphrey Mitchell: Is the hon. member referring to advertising in a restricted sense?


Stanley Howard Knowles: My point is that the government is not advertising annuities properly.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Of course it does the other kind of advertising, all the time. I have no doubt the minister has seen the little booklet I now hold in my hand, one which is circulated by the annuities branch of his department. The booklet is a most attractive one and, by the way, answers many of the arguments in connection with social ownership of financial institutions. Even so, the number of people in Canada who have heard of Canadian government annuities is very limited. I am wondering why so little publicity is given this desirable scheme. I should hope the government would consider it appropriate to let the people of Canada know a little more about Canadian government annuities, which, as this booklet says, are backed by the whole resources of the dominion.

The other matter to which I would direct the minister's attention has to do with the salaries paid in the annuities branch. As other hon. members have pointed out, it is true that some of those who are selling annuities on commission do not do badly. But employees working in the branch fare quite differently.
We are now discussing vote No. 101, and we find the break-down at page 94 of the estimates. I might point out that earlier this year, because of my interest in this whole subject, I did some browsing around in the estimates, and when doing so I was amazed at the small salaries paid some people who are doing very responsible work. Accordingly, I placed some questions on the order paper, and in reply some interesting information was brought down.
I would remind the committee of just one of those answers, as it appears at pages 1048 and 1049 of Hansard. In that answer I was told that the duties of a certain employee in the branch were as follows:
The making of actuarial calculations, involving the costs of both past and future service and interviewing employers relative to proposed retirement annuity plans for employees: the annual vacations of retirement plans in force; actuarial calculations concerning withdrawals, deaths and retirements under group contracts and the issuing of individual contracts in connection therewith; correspondence on all matters affecting retirement annuity plans, office work and routine in connection with the foregoing.
Those were the duties of one employee in the branch. At the same time I was given his qualifications. They were these:
(1) Graduation from Dalhousie university (B.A.) in mathematics and economics, (2) Passed three examinations of Actuarial Society of America, (3) Passed civil service grade 4 examination for university graduates, (4) First on eligible list, civil service competition for actuarial assistants 1943, (5) Five years' experience in annuities branch.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: He ought to be Prime Minister.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about the salary of this individual, who has these heavy responsibilities, and who has such high qualifications? He received $1,440 per year, plus a war duty supplement of $120 a year, plus a cost of living bonus of $221.94 a year. I was amazed that a man of his qualifications and having his responsibility would receive such a low income for the kind of work he is doing.
I took the matter up with the minister, not only as it applied to this individual, but with respect to other employees and as a matter of general policy in the department. In correspondence he explained to me the difficulty he has with the civil service commission and the treasury board-these are

Supply-Labour
friends of ours we run into all the time. However, despite the difficulty indicated in the correspondence, in due course he was able to do something. Order in council P.C. 31/2595 was passed under date of April 12, 1944, increasing the war duties supplement of this employee, so that his salary plus his war duties supplement now give him a total of $1,800 a year. We are always grateful for small mercies, and I am glad that the minister recognized the justice of my claim to the effect that this man should have been receiving higher pay. I submit, however, that his salary is still not in keeping with the responsibilities of the work carried on in the annuities branch.
On another occasion, in reply to some questions I placed on the order paper, an interesting return was tabled. This is dated March 21, 1944, and is identified as sessional paper 233. It sets out statistics as to the number of plans issued by the annuities branch in the last number of years. While it does not give the figures in respect of individual contracts taken out with the branch, it does give the number of plans set up by the branch, either for governmental bodies or for private corporations. I think members of the committee and the country generally should know about this service rendered by the annuities branch. Not only will it sell very desirable contracts to individuals, but it sets up these retirement plans, into which employees and employers may contribute, along with the assistance provided by the government, so as to make possible pensions for employees when they reach retirement age.
I was interested in the increase in this phase of the work carried on by the branch. In the fiscal year ending in 1938 the total number of new plans issued was six. In each of the succeeding years the number increased, until the year ending in 1943 we find that forty-seven new plans were issued. I emphasize this increase-from six in 1938 to forty-seven in 1943. The figure I have given is for the year ending March 31,1943, and I find that for the remaining nine months of that year fifty-six plans were issued.
This return to which I have called the attention of the committee also gives the dollar value of these plans, and shows that a real service is being rendered by the branch not only directly to individuals, but to private corporations and employers throughout the country. It is partly because this kind of service is being rendered to corporations that it seems to me most unfair that the work done in connection with these plans should be paid for at the low rates I have indicated. I hope that the minister will give some consideration to the two constructive suggestions I have offered. I am in full support of this work, but I feel that the activities of the annuities
branch should be publicized much more than they are. I feel also that the employees of that branch should be paid in accordance with the work they are doing.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
102. Combines Investigation Act, $28,380.
Mr. DIEFE'NBAKER: Could the minister give some information as to the work the commissioner is doing under the Combines Investigation Act; what work was done during the past year, and what work is being proceeded with now?
Humphrey Mitchell: There have been no prosecutions because the wartime prices and trade board regulations provide for any activities in this connection. The commissioner of the Combines Investigation Act is now with the wartime prices and trade board and he is keeping a close watch over the development of combinations in this country, if that is possible under the strict regulations in effect. He is also keeping a close eye upon the possible development of cartels and combines in the post-war period.
As my hon. friend knows, an investigation is being carried on at the present time ,by the United States government into the whole question of combines and cartels. I am given to understand that there is some difference of opinion among the governments of the united nations with respect to the question of international cartels. The situation is being closely watched by my department at the present time. We have a committee at work and investigation is being carried on in the light of possible conditions in the post-war period.
I think this can be said in connection with international cartels. It is my own view that the attitude of the larger powers will be of greater effect with respect to the maintenance of cartels after this war. I say again that the combines investigation branch of the Department of Labour is keeping the question under continuous survey at the present time.


John George Diefenbaker: Possibly the minister could give us some information with respect to the post-war policy that the commissioner or the department is carrying on. I know of what is being done in the United States, and I know something of what is being brought forth by the committee investigating the matter of international cartels and monopolies. I think we are entitled to more information than the minister has given us. He has simply made the general statement that every consideration is being given the matter by his department, cooperating with bodies in other united nations with regard to this very important matter.

Supply-Labour
I should like to know the nature of the investigations being carried on with regard to the post-war period by the Department of Labour. Further, I think we should be informed as to the nature of the disagreement among the united nations on the question of international cartels. While I am sure the minister will not be able to go into full detail in that regard), perhaps he would be prepared to inform us what Canada's attitude is, what the attitude of the Department of Labour is with regard to this problem.
The minister has stated that the commissioner is assigned to the wartime prices and trade board and that there is not very much for him to look after because of the wartime controls that are in existence. I am going to ask him a question to which I think he should give a very careful answer. Throughout the country from time to time statements are made on platforms with respect to the large percentages of profit being allowed to various monopolies in the production of war-time goods and in the filling of war-time needs. We frequently hear it said that tremendous profits are being made. I am not one who makes those assertions, but I think information should be forthcoming with regard to this matter. If these allegations are true, the country should know; if they are not, then that fact should be made plain. Possibly the minister could answer this question by stating to what extent control or limitation has been placed upon the rate of profit that is available to or can be made by companies supplying war needs.


Humphrey Mitchell: The Department of
Labour covers a lot of territory but it does not cover finance and national revenue. My opinion is that the government and the people of Canada-I am speaking of them jointly and collectively-deserve a great deal of credit for the conduct of this war on the industrial and commercial fronts. While I was not in Canada during the last war-I was at the war-I have a vivid recollection of the talk about profiteers.
I think it can be said truthfully that if anyone gets under the barrier of the income tax laws of this country, he is doing pretty good. I can speak personally about this matter. Not that I have attempted to get under that barrier, but I know what the Minister of Finance takes off me, to my own sorrow sometimes. I do not object, but that is what happens. I know it is sometimes felt that if you hammer the daylights out of the big fellow you are not taking any chances politically. It is sometimes thought that the easiest thing to do is to hammer the banks. I do not hold any brief for the banks or for

any other large organization. I am opposed to combines and I think they should be regulated; I am opposed to international cartels and always have been, but at the same time I think there is a great deal of loose talk going on with respect to the profits being made by those engaged in the production of necessary war materials for the successful prosecution of the war. That is my own opinion.
My hon. friend will have to ask the Minister of Finance or the Minister of National Revenue about the profits being made, because it is their departments that administer the income tax laws of this country. If he wants information about depreciation being allowed, I believe that would come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Munitions and Supply.
In order to give my own viewpoint as to the direction in which we are moving in connection -with the investigation of combines in this country, I think I had better quote a letter which I wrote to Mr. McGregor, commissioner of the Combines Investigation Act, on May 22 of this year. It reads:
Problems relating to international trade combinations such as international cartels and international patent arrangements have assumed great significance because of the possible effect of such arrangements on employment and domestic and foreign trade. Already international discussions on the expert level have brought forward proposals on which w-e are not as yet in a position to give an informed judgment.
No comprehensive study has been made in Canada of the various aspects of the problems involved and no steps have been taken to assemble information which will be necessary before sound conclusions can be reached. Questions in regard to international trade combinations are continually being raised and no time should be, lost in gathering adequate information as to the character and activities of international trade combinations and in considering possible measures of control.
As there is no legislation in Canada which applies to international cartels as such it is highly desirable that study be given in advance to existing Canadian legislation in regard to trade combinations in their general aspects and to what further measures might be adopted to deal specifically with international trade combinations.	'
Preliminary discussions on the relationship of cartel problems to other post-war economic problems have already taken place with officers of the Department of External Affairs, members of the advisory committee on economic policy and others. Dr. W. C. Clark and Dr. W. A. Mackintosh, chairman and vice-chairman of the advisory committee, have recommended that the necessary inquiries should be made without delay. I think they should be made under the general direction of yourself as commissioner A the combines investigation in consultation with Dr. Mackintosh and Mr. J. J. Deutsch of the Department of External Affairs with such assistance as may be found necessary. In

Supply-Labour
this connection I approve the suggestion that Mr. J. C. McRuer, K.C., of Toronto and Professor V. W. Bladen of the university of Toronto should be retained. I am writing to Mr. St. Laurent to-day to ask if he will make Mr. McRuer's services available. With these arrangements I hope it will be possible to proceed with the work with as little delay as possible.
What is here suggested is a study rather than a public inquiry. Its objective should be to secure basic information on which suitable government policy might later be based and in this respect would be in contrast to specific investigations to secure evidence of alleged offences. At various stages in the course of the inquiry it would be desirable to discuss with members of the economic advisory committee the information obtained and recommendations suggested. In general I suggest that the study might proceed along the following lines.
Study the nature and operations of international trade combinations in relation to Canadian interests and the measures which exist for their control. Such a study would include international patent arrangements. The committee should endeavour to find out to what extent policies followed by such trade combinations have affected employment or the operations of business enterprises in Canada or may affect them in the future. Attention should also be given to the effects of such arrangements on Canadian import and export trade and possible effects in the post-war period.
Study the extent to which activities of such international trade combinations are affected lay existing Canadian legislation and what further measures may be necessary to safeguard the public interest. In this phase of the study consideration should be given to the possibilities of international collaboration in the control of cartels.	.
Study the relationships that may exist between international and domestic trade combinations, and make recommendations of necessary changes in existing legislation affecting combinations of either type.
The letter is signed by myself.


John George Diefenbaker: Since this comprehensive power or responsiblity was conferred, have Mr. McRuer and the other gentlemen named done anything since the month of May last when this most scholarly letter was produced?


Humphrey Mitchell: I spent a lot of time
on it.


John George Diefenbaker: I can well believe
that. It is a most comprehensive letter and contains a great deal of hope as to what can be done. But actually what is being done following the expenditure of time and energy in the production of that letter and the giving of instructions? What are these men doing? Are any of them meeting with the committee in the United States? Has Canada a representative in Washington while the investigation is going on there?


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend must
appreciate the ramifications of a matter of this
sort. With reference to the investigation that is going on in Washington, I know that our people are going backwards and forwards all the time, and of course we have an embassy in Washington which is charged with the responsibility of keeping us informed of day-to-day developments. It is an immense problem, and all I hope is this, that they use more expedition than we have used in this house since last January.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a slap at the House of Commons.


John George Diefenbaker: International cartels and the like have been investigated for the past three years, but this government did nothing about it until it gave these instructions in May of 1944. I am trying to get a picture of what is actually being done and I seem to be having some difficulty. Is Mr. McRuer or any other counsel working on this thing? Are they to-day investigating the matters with respect to which they received these comprehensive instructions? What are they doing? Is an investigation going ahead?


Humphrey Mitchell: I thought I had answered my hon. friend's question. The investigation as directed is being carried on at the present time. I have no knowledge of any findings at the moment.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No report has yet been made to the minister?


Humphrey Mitchell: No.


Mr. BOUCHER:: Under the details for Combines Investigation Act I find that there are employed in this branch one commissioner, an assistant commissioner, one investigator, one clerk, one stenographer and one typist. If the commissioner, instead of acting as commissioner under the Combines Investigation Act, is working in the Department of Munitions and Supply, may I ask if these other officials are doing work connected with the Combines Investigation Act? The salaries of the commissioner and his assistant amount to $11,140, and the salaries of the rest of the staff amount to roughly $7,000. I would say that now in time of war, when there is great industrial activity of every kind, war expenditures, changes in management and control, changes even in the location of industries, there would seem to be a great work to be done in administering the Combines Investigation Act, having in mind the aims of parliament with regard to post-war reconstruction and rehabilitation. But the estimates would seem to indicate that the act has been almost discarded. Can the minister state anything whatsoever that is being done to justify the
52S4
Supply-Labour

expenditure of even $19,000 for salaries? What work is being done in connection with the Combines Investigation Act, and are these other officials still there?


Humphrey Mitchell: The whole staff is in the enforcement division of the wartime prices and trade board.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the situation?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes. It was made the nucleus of the enforcement division of the wartime prices and trade board. I think my hon. friend will agree that controls are to-day much more rigid than they were in peace time. Of course we assume that the enforcement branch of the wartime prices and trade board is far greater than it was under the Department of Labour, under the Combines Investigation Act.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What the minister has just said is that the branch for the moment is dormant.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And the officials are on loan to the wartime prices and trade board. I understand that is the situation.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is right.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Nothing
is being done by way of promoting investigations against combinations in restraint of trade. As a matter of fact, government policy, which, we shall be told, is based on war-time necessity, is to encourage control by a combination at the moment. The government is not going to investigate even in cases of combination; if I understand the situation aright, the government rather encouraged that there be a combination in connection with prices and that sort of thing.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know whether I should say "encouraged", but I think this might be said, that at the moment we have more or less a planned economy, under which people cannot do what they want to, they act under direction of the government. That applies to employers as well as employees. Those people who talk about a planned economy might reflect that we have almost one now.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think we have, too-too much so far as I am concerned.


Humphrey Mitchell: It has happened under pressure of war, and I believe it is inescapable under present day conditions where you have shortages of labour or materials or necessities of life, because it is necessary that they be rationed and apportioned, or prices set. At

least that is the policy at the moment of most of the governments of the united nations. As I said before, the control is much more rigid than it was under a peace-time condition.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: I notice that under this particular item there is a decrease of $1,870 as compared with last year. In view of the fact that no report is given I think we are right in coming to the conclusion that nothing is being done about combines investigations. I should like' the minister to enlarge on the procedure which is followed. How does this commission carry on its work? Does it wait for some person to draw to the attention of the commission that the lumber men across Canada, we will say, are getting together, and that these big interests are putting their funds together and forming large combinations, or that the steel boys seem to be combining their organizations? I do not know that there is anything in the machinery of the wartime prices and trade board to regulate the amalgamation of various interests across Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No; but they govern all the prices.


George Hugh Castleden: With regard to, say, the various companies in Canada which are producing and selling oil to the public there seems to be some kind of agreement on prices. In the clothing industry there is apparently very little in the way of competition. I think we are moving on from the age of competition into the age of control. A number of cement companies which operate in Canada control through patents the manufacture and sale of cement. One thing in which the agricultural community is particularly interested is farm machinery. Here is a field wherein I am quite sure the farmers would welcome a commission investigating the cost of production and the arrangements which apparently exist in regard to prices. Would the minister explain exactly what the procedure is? First of all, who is it that should make the request for an investigation? If such an investigation is requested, what is the machinery for investigation? If the facts are brought out through the investigation of the commission, what is the machinery for action to be taken against any offending company? Are there any laws in Canada which prohibit such combinations? What is required in the way of proof that there is an agreement between companies if one company merely says, "Oh, well, we do not agree with this company that we are going to charge the same price, but we follow them"? Is there any machinery whereby the Canadian people or any interested body can take action against the people who actually form a combine? This is an investigating commission; its

Supply-Labour
duty, apparently, is only to investigate. Is there any machinery for prosecution? Indeed, the commission does not even investigate. But if there were an investigation and anything were proved, what is the machinery for action which would do something about remedying the situation against combines? For us to say that in Canada there is no restraint of trade with regard to various commodities and natural resources is to shut our eyes to what has happened, for example, in the aluminum industry of recent years. The evidence which is produced to commissions in the United States and other countries is pretty strong proof' of what is going on. In the light of what is happening, for us to say that the wartime prices and trade board is operating and carrying on rigid control is arguable, perhaps, as regards prices, but I do not believe there is any regulation which prevents companies from getting together and forming combines and controlling prices.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know how long this act has been on the statute books, but it has been there for quite a while. May I remind * my hon. friend who talks so much about combines that all he has to do is to join with five other people and submit a complaint to the commission.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Based on
facts.


Humphrey Mitchell: Based on facts, you
understand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That only produces an
investigation.


Humphrey Mitchell: That only produces an
investigation, but then the parties involved are subject to prosecution if the investigation proves the complaint to be sound.
Mr. CASTLEDEN- Who must institute that .prosecution?


Humphrey Mitchell: The commissioner.


George Hugh Castleden: The commissioner is
responsible?


Humphrey Mitchell: Through the attorney
general. I do not want to read my hon. friend a lecture on price control, but may I say this. He speaks glibly about export boards and import boards-


George Hugh Castleden: I never mentioned
them.


Humphrey Mitchell: -or prices, and that
sort of thing. That is what we have now The wartime prices and trade board puts a ceiling on prices, and if the manufacturers do not comply with the law they are prosecuted.
My hon. friend criticizes the aluminum interests, but I do not know what we would have done if there had not been a private organization to produce aluminum. I hold no brief for the Aluminum Company of Canada; the facts in their case have been dealt with by the Minister of Munitions and Supply, But I know it is much easier to be brave when the battle is nearly won than it is before, and I think it took a lot of courage and technical knowledge to do what was done by the people who planned that development in northern Quebec. My personal opinion is that it does not gain us as a nation anything to be always accusing everybody who is capable of building an organization or constructing a railroad or doing anything of that description and suggesting almost that they are not honest. I have not taken that point of view. I have done a lot of business with big employers in this country, and as a trades unionist I have found good ones and bad ones, but I have found more good than bad. Some of the bad have been pretty bad, as the hon. member for Cape Breton South well knows, but I do not think it advances the cause of the working people of this country to be continually accusing everyone who is capable of building an industry or other undertaking of not being honest. If my hon. friend has any knowledge, as an individual, indicating the need of investigation, and his facts are supported by five other people, there will be an investigation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should
like to say a word in defence of the lumber men of this country The insinuation has just been throw-n out by the hon. member for Yorkton that the lumber men have got together and made a combine in respect of prices and everything else. The fact of the matter is that government regimentation and control absolutely govern selling prices; and in peace time there is no more competitive business in Canada than the lumber business.


Humphrey Mitchell: Absolutely.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There
never has been a cartel or any combination, as far as I am aware. There is the keenest competition for business, morning and night, day in and day out, 365 days in a year. The lumbermen as a class have developed as much industry in relation to the capital invested as any business in Canada. They are a class of people who have given as much industry in relation to capital invested as any other in Canada, and it does not sit very well on my shoulders to see anybody throwing mud at them.
Supply-Labour


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister said that he did not care to take advice, or direction at least, from members of the house.


Humphrey Mitchell: I will correct that in Hansard.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, no; let it stand the way you said it. Let me say to him that if he feels that he has to get on the defensive when in this house we urge activity under the Combines Investigation Act, when he gets back to his office he should get hold of the Winnipeg Free Press. He knows where that paper stands politically, that it supports this government like nothing on earth; and yet the Free Press is engaged in a very strong campaign to try to persuade the government really to put teeth into its implementation of the Combines Investigation Act. I would urge the minister to consider the representations that have been made to him on the floor of the house to-day in the light of similar representations he receives from his own party organ in Winnipeg.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have made it clear that I am opposed to cartels and combines. If we are to have free enterprise, let us have it; if we are to have socialist capitalism, which is a contradiction in terms, let us have it. The two will not work together. I have read in the Free Press the articles to which my hon. friend has referred, but that was not the only newspaper which carried such articles. You cannot move until you know the facts. The labour department has moved in the direction where we can get the. facts and, if necessary, legislation based on the facts when they are made known can be set in motion. My hon. friend and I are together on the question of cartels.


George Hugh Castleden: In reply to the sermon I had from the minister-


Humphrey Mitchell: I was not giving you a sermon.


George Hugh Castleden: I recognize the business ability of people to organize industry in Canada. We have in Canada one of the greatest lumber kings in the world.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. I understand that the Minister of Finance wishes to introduce some bills. Shall I report progress?
Progress reported.



DOMINION SUCCESSION DUTY ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce bill No. 166, to amend the Dominion Succession Duty Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce bill No. 167, to amend the customs tariff.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour, the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Sedate.
Accordingly, the house went up to the Senate.
And having returned.
Mr. SPEAKER informed the house that the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased1 to give in His Majesty's name the royal assent to the following bills:
An act respecting The General Missionary Society of the German Baptist Churches of North America, and to change its name to The North American Baptist General Missionary Society.
An act for the relief of Pinnie Rosenhek Leopold.
An act for the reLief of Joseph Ulric Edouard Burns.
An act for the relief of Goldie Anker Lazanik.
An act for the relief of Adelard Belanger.
An act for the relief of Alice Robert Rajotte.
An act for the relief of Frances Eleanor Campbell Coleman.
An act for the relief of George Igaz.
An act for the relief of John William Frank Draper.
An act for the relief of Sam Sokoloff.
An act for the relief of Leon LeBrun.
An act for the relief of William Taffert.
An act for the relief of Belle Bailey Leibovitch.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Gertie	Shulman
Friedman.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Sarah	Slutsky
Shapiro.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Jessie	Dickson
Mackie Toy.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Angele	Pauline
Edgar Marie Lambert Choux.
An act for the relief of Margaret Kathleen Hollenbeck Fortin.
An act for the relief of Hulda Van Koughnet Lynch-Staunton.
An act for the relief of James MacMillan McHale.
An act for the relief of Vernon Ross Aiken.
An act for the relief of Frederick Richard Channon.
An act for the relief of Ernest Charles Hazard.
An act respecting The Naval Service of Canada.
An act to provide regulations enabling Canadian War Service electors to exercise their franchise, and Canadian prisoners of war to

Divorce Bills
vote by proxy, at any general election held during the present war, also to provide amendments to The Dominion Elections Act, 1938, consequential to such regulations, or made necessary by the advent of the said war.
An act to amend the Salaries Act.
An act to amend The Transport Act, 1938.
An act to establish a Department of National Health and Welfare.	,
An act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1945.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on bill No. 140, for the relief of James Russell Popham-Mr. Mcllraith-Mr. Bradette in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Mr. DORION:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words with respect to these divorce bills. Without committing myself on this matter, because I am and always will be opposed to any form of divorce, I went to the trouble to read a considerable number of the reports containing the evidence produced in support of these bills. I take this opportunity to protest strongly against the granting of so many divorces on such meagre evidence.
All the evidence is of the same kind. The evidence in most of these cases is prepared by private detective agencies, without the support of any other evidence. I might add that I have persona] knowledge of at least one case in which the evidence was altogether fabricated, and the respondent was paid a considerable sum of money to prevent his contesting the case. I say further that not ten per cent of these petitions would be granted before an ordinary court of justice.
In these days of stress and suffering I am asking myself if a nation can entertain the hope of seeing better days when its fundamental foundation, its institution of matrimony, is being so lightly dealt with. Can a nation build for a better future when its parliament consents to the ratification of such a state of affairs? The Prime Minister told us some time ago that even when the war is over we shall have to meet the forces of evil spread throughout the world. I agree with what he said, and I believe the best support which we can give those forces of evil is, without any doubt, the ease with which divorces are obtained in this country.
We as members of parliament have duties to fulfil. One of those duties, even if it may not please everybody, is to put a stop to what I would call the most dangerous means of harming society at large. At the present time our armed forces are fighting one of the greatest struggles the world has ever seen, so that our country may be freed from the menace of tryanny, and so that we may be assured of better living conditions and lasting peace. My submission is that the best support we can give our fighting men, from inside the country, is to take all the means in our power to prevent the forces of evil from taking a lead in our midst, and also to prepare for our men a clean country in which they can enjoy a decent living, based on Christian principles.
I say, therefore, that we should reject these divorce bills, and send them back to those from whom they came. Let us show the public, in so doing, that it is useless to ask parliament to deal with this kind of legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed. CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS
Bill No. 141, for the relief of Norma Segal Katz.-Mr. Maclnnis.
Bill No. 142, for the relief of Harold Almond Jelley-Mr. Douglas.
Bill No. 143, for the relief of [DOT] Josephine Kurys Kulczycki.-Mr. Whitman.
Bill No. 144, for the relief of Shirley Harte Harvey Payne.-Mr. Hill.
Bill No. 145, for the relief of Pearl Anneta Benn Russell.-Mr. Whitman.
Bill No. 146, for the relief of Joseph Adelard Paul Begin.-Mr. Maclnnis.
Bill No. 150, for the relief of Eugene Charron.-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City).
Bill No. 151, for the relief of Lillian Bessie Noall Salmon.-Mr. Hill.
Bill No. 152, for the relief of Joan Helen Gorham Glover.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 153, for the relief of Elsie Hollingsworth.-Mr. Casselman (Grenville-Dundas).
Bill No. 154, for the relief of Louis Joseph Jules Laurencelle.-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City).
Bill No. 155, for the relief of Freda Altman Scheien.-Mr. Factor.
Bill No. 156, for the relief of Ivan Walter Moore.-Mr. Mcllraith.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 157, for the relief of Everett Roy Clow.-Mr. Douglas.
Bill No. 158, for the relief of Elmore MacLean MacKay-Mr. Douglas.
Supply-Labour
[Stage Direction]


The house in committee of supply, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
department of labour
102. Combines Investigation Act, $28,380.
George Hugh Castleden: When we left this item before the dinner recess we were discussing the operation of the Combines Investigation Act. We were discussing with the minister the various merits of a system of so-called free enterprise in which men may organize industry, and carry on their amalgamation and organization to the utmost of their ability and, apparently, to any conclusion they might consider proper under that system.
I am not questioning the ability of men to form amalgamated organizations of business, but I protest against the continuance of the maintenance of a monopoly and the concentration of power for profits in the hands of a few people, as permitted in this and other countries throughout the world. This country is doing fa.r too little in the way of investigating combines. The reports of the Truman committee and other commissions in the United States and other countries show the extent to which so-called free enterprise is allowed to expand and control the lives of people in world-wide combines. The small amount we have under this item, which is even smaller this year, indicates that the government is failing to curtail the forces which in our opinion constitute the basic causes of depression and which go even further than that, constitute one of the causes of war.
When people in a certain type of organization decide to expand, they become powerful. They use cutthroat competition and wipe out the smaller man. Competition gradually disappears and then they enter into agreements with other large firms with regard to prices. The smaller man is cut out; his opportunity to stay in business is taken away, or he is given no chance to get started. These agreements apparently are allowed to exist in this country. As the minister explained before the dinner recess, the way in which this act operates is for five persons to lay evidence before the combines investigation commissioner. The case is heard and then, if the minister sees fit, he may institute an action against the combine.
I do not know the extent to which that has been carried out. In our opinion too many combines have been permitted in this country. Rich and powerful companies have got control of our natural resources. They control most of our oil resources, our steel, our water power, our nickel and our lumber.

In other industries we find that these people have control of food, clothing and the things required to build shelter. They gradually build up monopolies in the national field. Then when they have overcome competition in that field, they go into the international field. There are concerns which are recognized throughout the world as being international combines with tremendous power.
When the control of food, clothing, shelter and the necessities of life within the nation are in the hands of a few people, it inevitably leads to want and insecurity, a lowered standard of living and a lowered standard of health.


Thomas Reid: We have the highest standard of living in the world.


George Hugh Castleden: Look at the health standard records of this country, fifty per cent of our young men unable to pass the physical and mental examination to get into the armed forces.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The record is as good as in any other country,


George Hugh Castleden: I doubt it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I know it.


Thomas Reid: As the Scots say, "facts are chiels that winna ding."


George Hugh Castleden: Look at the records in Quebec with regard to tuberculosis and infant mortality.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You are just taking one province. What about Saskatchewan?


George Hugh Castleden: What about the birth rate of this country?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What about the record of your own province in regard to tuberculosis?


George Hugh Castleden: Take the whole nation.


Thomas Reid: It still has the highest standard.


George Hugh Castleden: I am talking about the development of the natural resources of this country so that they may provide a means of decent living for the people. We had a million people on relief between 1930 and 1939.


An hon. MEMBER:: 1935.


George Hugh Castleden: Young men were roaming up and down the country looking for work. When that happens something is wrong with a country like Canada, one of the richest in the world in natural resources-

Supply-Labour


Thomas Reid: It is still better than most countries.


George Hugh Castleden: These people who operate international cartels control not only our natural resources but many patents. The people are denied free access to these. The benefits of science are not available to the people, and they cannot possibly get hold of the things they want unless they pay the price to those who hold the monopoly. There are world combines which are recognized in oil, in electrical goods, and in Canada we have our great natural resources of nickel under the control of International Nickel company. These are the forces which in war time build the armaments for the world. When there is competition in world markets, they form cartels. They are the people who inevitably look upon war time as a harvest of profits.
We in this group have a different philosophy of life. We do not believe that profits should be the main objective in life. We believe that the natural resources of the country should be used to improve the welfare of the people, that the profit motive should be supplanted by the service motive. The people of Canada consider that this government has failed in investigating combines within the country and taking action against them. I should like to repeat what the hon. member for Melfort put on the record the other night with regard to farm implement prices. This was the report of a special committee adopted by the legislative assembly of Saskatchewan as recently as 1939. One recommendation reads:
(2) That, as the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act of the dominion appear to have been violated by the major companies in the industry, consideration should be given to instituting proceedings under the said act.
I do not think it should be left to individuals to start these investigations, to lay the complaint. That is the duty of the government. The government should have the welfare of the people at heart. This branch should be busy investigating these things. There is plenty of evidence of what is going on. We should be investigating these combines, both national and international, just as is being done in the United States. If that were done the people would have more confidence in the operations of this department and of the government.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
105. Payments to provinces under agreements respecting youth training, including undischarged commitments of previous years, $500,000.
Alfred Henry Bence: At the present time a great deal of vocational training is being carried on in the armed forces by the Department of
National Defence in what are known as army trade schools. As I understand it, the directors and other personnel were supplied by the Department of Labour. I want to request the Minister of Labour to consider cooperating with the Department of National Defence with a view to taking over the vocational training work of the army in order that the transition from war to peace may not cause too great a change in the set-up.
I mentioned this before in the house and I believe the minister took cognizance of it. I am worried about the possibility of the Department of National Defence and the Department of Labour becoming separated in connection with this vocational work, with the result that, when the war is over, the facilities which have been supplied1 by the Department of National Defence, and the experience which that department has gained, may not be used to coordinate the work of the Department of Labour under this particular item.
In the city of Saskatoon there is an army trades school which is carried on at the exhibition grounds, and I am very glad to say that recently they took over the extensive buildings formerly occupied by No. 7 I.T.S. of the Royal Canadian Air Force. In view of the fact that the whole set-up is there, the buildings, equipment and instructors, what is the Department of Labour going to do with respect to taking it over and carrying it on in the peace-time period, and similarly what is it going to do with other set-ups of that kind?
I am convinced that we can raise the standard of living of the people of this country provided that we raise our educational standards and that our people are given an opportunity to acquire th'e necessary training and qualifications. If we continue to keep the great majority of our people in the status of labourers we can expect little more out of them than purely manual labour. But if we help them to train themselves as artisans we can raise the standard of living throughout this country. When the men come back from overseas and are discharged I feel sure that most of them will be and should be interested in improving their educational qualifications, whether they go into vocational training or acquire higher educational training. In the transition from war to peace I suggest that set-ups such as we have now in the city of Saskatoon would be very helpful, so that when peace comes, and it may come sooner than we expect, as I hope it will, we should be all set to train these men for the essential jobs which I believe will be available to them when the war is over. I am convinced that with the desire of the Canadian people to obtain more and more of the ordinary goods which they
Supply-Labour

will wish to consume in times of peace we shall be able to find employment for the men who are discharged from the armed services, provided that they are properly trained, and I suggest to the minister and to the administration that the closest possible liaison should be established between the Department of National Defence and the vocational training branch of the Department of Labour so that the training and education of these men will run along smoothly on the cessation of hostilities.


Humphrey Mitchell: All the things my hon. friend suggests are already being done. Through the agency of the war emergency training programme we have trained 250,000 persons for industry alone; in addition we have trained
41,000	for the army, 65,000 for the air force and 8,000 for the navy. We have carried out the basic training for aircrew and ground forces. At this moment there is an interdepartmental committee of the Department of Pensions and National Health, the Department of Labour and representatives of the armed forces who are continually working on this problem which my hon. friend has mentioned. I think it is correct to say that no other nation is as well prepared as Canada in its training programme for the rehabilitation of the armed forces. I say that with the knowledge of one who has passed through the period of the establishment of the war emergency training' programme and the erection of the largest industrial structure we have had in the history of this country. I have no fears whatsoever as to the ability of the dominion in cooperation with the provinces and the municipalities to provide training for every service man who desires to take it. But my hon. friend has perhaps already heard that out of 150,000 already discharged from the armed forces only 3,000 have so far availed themselves of the training facilities provided by the federal government, which reminds one of what happened after the last war, that many men and women will go back to their former vocations without utilizing the facilities provided by the government of this country. I am glad that my hon. friend has raised this question, because I can assure him and the people of this dominion that we have established a firm foundation for a training policy necessary for the rehabilitation of the men and women discharged from the armed forces.


Alfred Henry Bence: May I ask the minister what plans he and his department have for taking over the vocational training now being carried on by the army in Saskatoon, for example. You have there a very fine set-up. If peace
^Mr. Bence.]
is declared within six months, what steps will the department take to utilize that set-up which is a going concern in the city of Saskatoon?


Humphrey Mitchell: As a matter of fact, we are already utilizing it. We have taken it over from the army and are going to continue to use it, I understand, for the training of exservicemen discharged from the forces.


George Russell Boucher: I am glad to hear the minister say that he is interested in training the men of the armed forces for the various trades and arts. May I point out to him a matter that has come to my attention recently? I refer to the necessity of getting training centres such as have been mentioned established in the rural areas. As we all know, the war has drained off our rural population to the cities and towns, with the result that nearly all our country villages and towns and rural areas have been deprived of their manpower to an alarming degree-plumbers, tinsmiths, blacksmiths, electricians, cement workers and many other tradesmen. A survey has been made of my county. Unfortunately I have not the figures here, but the survey showed how many men in the various trades could be employed within an area of ten square miles. The particulars given to me were alarming.
I believe that one of our biggest problems in the post-war period will be to rebuild the country villages and small towns in the rural areas. The life-blood of every nation is furnished by these rural centres and if the rural centres are successful, agriculture, which is our greatest industry, will be successful. But we all realize how our country villages and towns have been dwindling in population during the war and how greatly their economy has been disturbed, as well as the privileges, conveniences and enjoyments of the people who live in our rural centres. The war has taken our young people away from the rural centres into the armed forces and into munitions plants in the larger centres where lines of work are now open to them which will be closed when peace comes. I think we all realize the problem that we must face in getting our young people back into the rural centres in order to take up their life there once more. The success of social life in rural centres depends upon the church, the school, the small community enterprises. I trust that this government will prepare for repopulating our rural areas in the post-war period. There is a much greater requirement for that than probably any other phase of our national life. You cannot get people to live in the rural centres unless you get them interested and keep them busy at work which they enjoy. You must bring to-day, much more

Supply-Labour
than we have for the past twenty-five years, to people in the rural centres the services to which they have been accustomed in the last few years in the larger centres.
We look at some rural area to-day, depleted as it is of young people, where the father or the aged person who carries on agricultural pursuits, the blacksmith and the tradesmen having left his community, finds difficulty in making repairs. If you took a survey of a rural district and found what the farmer particularly needs by way of improvements, it would impress you with the necessity of the tradesman and the artisan. I believe the best way is not to train in the larger centres but to take the trade schools and educational facilities right out to the smaller areas. If, for instance, we went to Kemptville agricultural college, looked at the record of their graduates and found out how large a percentage of them have returned to rural life and become specialists in their own business as compared with the graduates of any of the larger colleges, we would see how alarming the comparison is and how much to the benefit of the rural district their training is. With this country as extensive as it is, with agriculture playing so prominent a part, we should take more to the rural areas by way of trades and businesses, so that we may rebuild the little country centres, so that we may improve the lot of agriculture, because we must depend upon agriculture to provide a fundamental place for our -man-power policy in the future life of Canada, and we should specialize in this work. I would draw the attention of the minister therefore, to the importance not only of building trade schools in the large centres but of locating them in the smaller centres, so that while smaller in size they will be greater in number.


Clarence Gillis: I think the hon. member for Saskatoon City raised a very important point, and we should not too complacently assume that we have solved the problem to which he referred. I understand that with a view to the rehabilitation of the veteran the new Department of Veterans' Affairs has been set up. That department will attend exclusively to the retraining of service personnel. The item under discussion has to do with something which should be carried forward into the post-war period. I fear that our vocational plans are based on the emergency of war and that, as happened after the last war, immediately the service personnel have been taken care of or as their welcome by the public wears out on the basis of being service personnel, the machinery set up will gradually disappear.
The minister in his answer stated that we are to-day in a better position from the point of view of vocational training than ever before in the history of the country. That is true, and in order to improve what we had we did not have to do very much, because when this war broke out, in 1939, there were very few vocational training facilities in any section of Canada, and a good job was done in setting up emergency machinery to train both our service personnel and those who went into war industry. It was, I repeat, a good job done in a hurry. When the war ceases, practically all the
250,000	persons who have been trained for war industry and other pursuits connected therewith will have to be retrained. The jobs they are doing to-day are war-time jobs, and when the war machine stops, when they will no longer be making shells and Bren guns and the other things they specialize in to-day, they will have to be routed back to our peace-time economy to produce some other article, and it is going to require special training. It is not a job which will come within the purview of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. In my opinion the retraining of those in war industry will fall to the lot of the Department of Labour. The danger as I see it is that, when you have two or three departments, whose jurisdiction and duties are not clearly defined, handling the one problem, the tendency will be to pass it from one to the other and as a result no one is going to do very much about it. I believe that the pressure of public opinion will force us to take care of the service personnel, but I am still somewhat sceptical about the retraining of those in war industries, who will be coming back to us in much greater numbers than service personnel. There is a big retraining job to be done there, and I am not too confident of the capacity of the machinery and the equipment which the Department of Labour will have available to do that job.
I have in mind one emergency programme which is set up under the Department of Labour and which I hope will be carried on after the war. I refer to the emergency training programme established in the coal mines of Nova Scotia. That is a war emergency programme. It is done through the duress of war. My assumption and that of most of the people affected is that when the emergency in fuel disappears that training scheme likewise will go by the board. I am in hopes that * under this vote, which should be much larger, not only will the Department of Labour carry on that programme of apprenticeship which
Supply-Labour

was started in the coal mines of Nova Scotia, but that it will be extended and the business of coal mining will be a profession. That is going to come within the purview of this particular department. While you may have exceptionally good training facilities in the central provinces of Canada, and as the hon. member for Saskatoon City pointed out, the facilities in that particular city are fairly good, I know that those in Nova Scotia and, I believe, generally in the maritimes leave much to be desired. There was one school located, I believe, at New Glasgow and financed to some extent by the Clark Ruse aircraft people. When the plant at Dartmouth closed the school closed. There is machinery there which should be utilized after the war and developed into a permanent vocational training centre.
Right now, as the Minister of Pensions and National Health is very well aware, most of the returning service personnel coming back to Nova Scotia, many of whom had a job in the mines previous to enlistment, and were discharged from the service because of disability, cannot resume the job which they did previously, and to-day they are making the rounds of selective service offices. While we have a regulation which permits them to take advantage of the present vocational training facilities, in that, province there is nowhere to send them to train. The minister pointed out that a very small percentage of returning service personnel are taking advantage of the vocational training facilities. That is all too true, and the reason is that the remuneration they receive in order to take that course, in the maritime provinces, where they are obliged to leave their homes, most of them having families, is not sufficient to enable them to maintain their home in one section of the country and live in another section.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is that correct since the rates were raised recently?


Clarence Gillis: It is correct. While the rates have been substantially increased, I submit that leaving home and virtually maintaining two families has a tendency to make these men try to seek employment which will enable them to live at home. There is a remedy for that situation, and that is the establishment of training centres in the areas in which these people live in order to encourage them. In my opinion sufficient emphasis has not been placed on the importance of vocational training. Anyone who came through the last war * and was demobilized knows the great mistake which the men made at that time in not taking advantage of the vocational training facilities that were provided.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: But the basis is very much wider now than it was after the last war.


Clarence Gillis: That is absolutely true; but even then, bad as it was, anyone coming back would have been much better off had he made the necessary sacrifice for a year in order to retrain himself for some calling so that he might have fitted himself into some occupation in keeping with his physical abilities, instead of doing what most of them did, going into jobs where physically they could not stand up to the work, with the result that in a year or two they broke down and were unfit for anything. They had then no chance of taking the vocational training which was available in the first place. A selling job to the service personnel, to those coming out of war industry, is necessary now, in order to make them thoroughly acquainted with the advantages to be gained as a result of that particular programme.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is being done.


Clarence Gillis: It certainly is not effective. It is not being done to the extent that it should be. I merely rose to support what the hon. member for Saskatoon City says, that we do not want to place the main emphasis all the time, so far as vocational training is concerned, entirely on the emergency machinery that is being set up to take care of service personnel.
There is another group to which attention must be given. I refer to the women's services. Very little mention has been made of them. They are coming back also and many of them have taken training in specialized jobs. What is the programme for the women's services? I suggest that when their duties are over in the organizations in which they are now engaged they have an important contribution to make to Canada. In my opinion Canada requires a good many social service workers in the interests of national health, for instance. National health machinery is now being set up, and the women have an important place to fill, as well, in the cultural development of the country, for example, in the staffing of libraries, which I hope will be established, and in many kindred vocations, for which perhaps many of these girls have trained themselves. An inventory of the women forces should be taken and some vocational training facilities should be provided exclusively for them in order that they may take their proper place in the scheme of things.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is being done too.

Supply-Labour


Clarence Gillis: I am glad to hear that. You are not advertising yourselves well enough. You should get someone over there to do a good advertising job for you.


Humphrey Mitchell: We have not the time; we are too busy administering things.


Clarence Gillis: You are like most of us; you have not the time. However, with regard to this question of vocational training, the point I wish to make is this. There is no use in building up a paper organization and telling the public at large what is going to be done, because we are only kidding ourselves. Those of us who will have the responsibility of representing the various communities in the next parliament must not lead the people to believe that we have solved the problem, that all the machinery necessary in the field of vocational training is there, because if we do that it is going to react on ourselves. You must have schools in the different provinces, and so far as the maritimes are concerned, we do not have them. They are not there and they must be established. I pointed out one particular school in New Glasgow that should be reorganized for the peace-time set-up. All we have there is a technical college in Halifax with its peace-time facilities, and it is certainly not in any condition to do the kind of job that should be done in the post-war period in the field of vocational training.


Humphrey Mitchell: I should like to put the record straight. My hon. friend said that we did not advertise enough, and he added that there was no vocational training prior to the outbreak of the war.


Clarence Gillis: Not much.


Humphrey Mitchell: Well, there was the
youth training programme. In the years 1937-39 we trained 150,000 young people.


Clarence Gillis: What were they trained for?


Humphrey Mitchell: Different vocations. I could give the hon. member a list of them or send them over to him.


Clarence Gillis: I should like to see them.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. gentleman suggested that this vocational training should be carried into the peace-time period. That is already taken care of. We changed the name "war emergency training programme" to "Canadian vocational training programme," and we have already negotiated apprenticeship agreements with seven provinces for ten years. He spoke of machinery and equipment. I do not think there should be any difficulty as far as buildings, machinery and equipment are concerned when the war is over. We have ample supplies that will be available at the
conclusion of hostilities. In fact, the department has already put in its preliminary requirements to the crown assets allocation committee for use in vocational and other training purposes we have in mind.
My hon. friend spoke of the women. Of persons being trained who are discharged from the armed, forces I mentioned 150,000, and
3,000	have been availing themselves of training facilities. One-fifth of these are women and they are being treated exactly the same as the men. We have a special committee that is advising the vocational advisory committee in connection with the retraining of women.
My hon. friend raised the question about rates paid for training. This is .probably the fairest opinion on the situation as it exists at the moment. There are many jobs available at good wages in my hon. friend's own province, for example, both for women and for men at the present time, but what the situation in the future will be I do not know. I do not think any of us knows what it will be. We do not know what the position in Europe will be if Hitler collapses two months from now. The situation is one which, all opinions to the contrary notwithstanding, will baffle the imagination as well as the intelligence of any kind of government there may be in this country. I would say in passing, however, that in my opinion the government that is capable of setting up the organization and giving the direction that can best take advantage of the contribution which this nation has made toward the destruction of the greatest menace that has ever threatened mankind is the present administration.


Clarence Gillis: The government passes so many orders in council that we never see, that it is a good thing occasionally to inquire in the House of Commons and get necessary information. I do not think it is a good policy to wait until we see what is going to happen in Europe. We know we are going to win and hope we shall establish the social objectives for which we are winning the war, and that will require certain machinery. I have in mind approximately 6.000 miners, from district 26, in the armed services-that is the latest figure-most of whom are in France and Italy, and they will be coming back.
They have been serving in front-line battalions. When they come back they will be coming to a part of Nova Scotia at least where there is no employment for them. They are going to require retraining, In order to be retrained they will have to leave that province. In a section like that, a heavy industry section, where you are going to have to reallocate to new, employment most of the personnel,
Supply-Labour

there should be retraining centres convenient to their homes so that they will not have to do like members of parliament, work in Ottawa and maintain a family in another part of the country. That causes dual expense. The rates for vocational training are fair if the men are living at home. There is no doubt about that, but I should like to see something in the way of vocational training schools set up in my part of the country to train these men for some other employment. I do not think it is good enough to ask men in every generation to go to war and offer their lives for their country and then, when they come back to that part of the country which they left, the part which they fought for, they are obliged to migrate to some part of the world in order to get a job after the main job has been done. I think we should be realistic enough to say: "When you come back we shall train you for something close to your home and we may try to find you a job in that part of the country for which you fought." After all, that is the part of the country for which these men are fighting. There are no facilities in that part of the country to retrain anyone. I just leave that thought with the minister.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I ask my hon. friend this question? Does he know of any part of the world to-day that pays for vocational training $60 for a single man and $80 for a married man, with corresponding family allowance so that a man with six children has $126 while training? Neither in Australia, New Zealand nor any other part of the world are the rates as high as they are in Canada to-day.


Clarence Gillis: I am not quarreling with the rates. I said that the rates were fair. The minister also realizes that in most of the industries when a man is obliged to live away from his family, if he is moved by selective service there is a subsistence allowance to make up for the additional expense. That is the point I have in mind. I think it is a point that is militating against the retraining programme to-day.


George Russell Boucher: Has the minister done
anything toward having vocational training out in the rural areas in the schools, technical schools or vocational training schools? Great improvements along that line could be done in those areas. If that were done a great deal of help would be had in the settling of our war-tom country. Our young people would be encouraged to come back to the rural areas and settle there. I think we made a mistake before the war started in that we

did not look after the small rural areas by improving rural life in those communities. Instead of that we encouraged the settlement of those people in congested areas. Could the minister give us any information along that line?


Humphrey Mitchell: That is being done, but speaking from memory I do not think it is being done in Ontario. I know in Alberta we have carried on experimental classes in that regard. We have also done quite a lot in connection with the repairing of farm machinery in Saskatchewan. Let me say this to my hon. friend. Our first duty is to see that these people get proper education and training. By the very nature of things that can be best done in the larger centres, because, after all is said and done, you have to get a staff. May I give an analogy? One of the reasons why the universities of this country are to a large degree centred in some of the urban communities is that it would be impossible to decentralize the work of the universities in the smaller communities in the various provinces. But the thought expressed by my hon. friend will be given all the consideration that we can possibly give it. However, I leave that practical question with him. The buildings, the equipment and, above everything else, the training facilities, the teachers, are best obtained in the larger urban centres of the country. That is the reason why our technical facilities for the training of teachers even in the rural communities are situated in Toronto and Hamilton in the province of Ontario.


George Russell Boucher: I think the minister will
realize that within the last twenty-five years even the larger universities in the larger centres have done a lot in the way of university extension, and have become aware of the very thing of which I speak. Perhaps he has not fully appreciated the point I had intended to make here, namely, the training of people in rural areas by taking the schools of training out there. I think that has a decided advantage in keeping them there. If he will look through the record of the little continuation school and the high school in the smaller centres he will be amazed at the large percentage of the people who remain in the community compared with the people taught in the high schools or continuation schools or collegiate institutes of the big centres. I think we in Canada missed an opportunity before the war, and we are still doing so by not looking upon the rural community as the place to educate our people instead of bringing our rural people into the larger centres and expecting them to come back. I gave an illustration of Kemptville agricultural college and compared it with Guelph to show the

Supply-Labour
high percentage of the graduates of the smaller college who remained in the rural areas and compared that with the comparatively low percentage of graduates of the collegiates in the cities and larger towns who returned to the rural areas. I think we made a great mistake.
I should like to impress upon the minister the necessity of taking the services for training out to the smaller centres. Even though it does cost more, the return on the investment will be much greater, and it would do a much better job in rehabilitation if that were done.
So far as grounds and buildings are concerned, this war has caused such an extension of grounds for military needs in our rural areas that they could be used for this purpose. They are scattered pretty well over our rural areas. I spoke of our airfields, training schools and military camps. In my country we have the Connaught rifle ranges, 2,700 acres of land. They were used before the war and for the first two years of this war for two or three months in the year. The grounds, buildings and community life were idle the rest of the time. When these facilities are in a rural area they could be used for this very thing. I think the government should not make the mistake of allowing those properties to become idle for so many months of the year when they are there to be used and rural life could benefit by their use.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend spoke of the extension classes of universities. We have been doing that for the last seven years in the prairie provinces, Quebec and the mari-times. What we have had in most of the provinces have been travelling teachers who have gone from community to community teaching the various classes that have been established in connection with training in the rural parts of the dominion.


George Russell Boucher: The minister will agree that there has not been nearly enough of it.


Humphrey Mitchell: Perhaps not in your province, but in all the others.


Mr. QUELOH:: I think the technical schools established in Alberta for the purpose of training farm- boys in the use of farm machinery served a very useful purpose. I hope they will be reopened after the war. I hope their facilities will be accorded to soldiers of the first war. Is it a fact it is the intention of the government to start up these classes again as soon as possible?


Humphrey Mitchell: I would say that in Alberta they have done a remarkably good job in the last seven years, particularly since I have been connected with this department, in connection with vocational training.


Clarence Gillis: With respect to the apprenticeship system now operating in the coal mines of Nova Scotia, is it the intention to carry it forward1 into the post-war period? Where are all those people who were trained prior to the war, and what were they trained for? I know that many efforts were made through the country and at that time in Nova Scotia to lay down some kind of apprenticeship plan either in the steel plants or in the coal mines. They never could get anywhere with it, for the simple reason that those trained at that time, so far as these two industries were concerned, were merely for the purpose of providing cheap labour. On that basis, where industries were unionized, no progress was made with that kind of programme. The apprenticeship plan now operating in the Nova Scotia mines is a good one. It is an excellent plan, and well worked out. To the best of my knowledge it is working with the approval of the men themselves and they are slowly extending it. Is it the intention to carry on with that plan, because the department is not going to get anywhere in the programme it had prior to the war in the two industries I mentioned?


Humphrey Mitchell: I would say that the
answer would be: If necessary, yes. But as my hon. friend knows, the coal industry has caused the government grave concern. Production has gone down and the cost of production has gone up. As my hon. friend knows, we expect to set up a royal commission in the not very distant future, and I should think one of the terms of reference might be the whole field of training in the coal industry.
I see the weight of my hon. friend's argument. I was a tradesman myself, and I suppose largely because I was apprenticed at one time I have been greatly interested in furthering the apprenticeship aspect of post-war planning. It is a step the dominion has never taken before, and it is my desire that there may be established in this country a great love of trade,and calling. I have always maintained the position that if you can teach a youngster to work with his hands first, you need not worry about his future. It has been my feeling that our education has gone too far in the other direction, toward the white-collar worker.
I was trained in a school in which the first thing a parent thought about was to teach boys and girls to work with their hands. I hope the leadership given by the dominion will bring about the establishment in every province-or possibly I should say the reestablishment-of a pride in crafts and workmanship
Supply-Labour

which existed in the early part of this generation. I sympathize with my hon. friend's point of view.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
107. Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940; administration, $5,375,150.
Alfred Henry Bence: In this connection I think we might first of all invite some comment from the minister as to the reason why the cost of administration is over twenty-five per cent of the total cost of unemployment insurance in the dominion.
While I am on my feet I would point out something which no doubt has been drawn to his attention before, namely, that there are many employees in Canada who are considerably irked by the fact that there is no possibility of their ever being able to take advantage of the unemployment insurance measures. In fact, unemployment insurance to them is not unemployment insurance, but is merely an additional tax levied1 for the purpose of ensuring that other people will be supplied with unemployment insurance, in the event of their occupations failing them.
This matter was rather forcibly brought to my attention within recent months, owing to the fact that in Saskatoon we have a large body of municipal employees, most of whom occupy the same building. It so happens that in that city we retail our light and power. We do not produce it; rather we purchase it from the provincial government, and then our municipal employees after purchasing it from the government retail it to the citizens of Saskatoon.
For a long time all the employees in the city were in the same position. That is, they did not come under the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Recently, however, an amendment was introduced in the regulations. I hold in my hand what I believe would be described as a news item, from the unemployment insurance commission, under date of September 1, 1943. It points out, in effect, that whereas employees of public utilities formerly did not come under the provisions of the act, from that day forward they would.
I took this matter up with the chief commissioner, pointing out to him that here were a set of municipal employees, all ostensibly doing the same work in the city of Saskatoon. In other words, they were all working for that city. Some of them happened to be employed, not in the manufacture or distribution, but rather in the retailing of power and light. They have been brought under the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Deductions were made from their salaries
TMr. Mitchell.]
every month in the year; but their fellows, who were also working for the same city and being paid by the same organization, were allowed to keep the whole of their salaries, so far as unemployment insurance deductions were concerned.
The fact is that all these employees are in the same position. They are permanent employees; there is no possibility of their being discharged, unless for cause. There is a provision in the city regulations under which they receive superannuation after reaching a certain age. If they become sick or disabled before that time provision is made for them by the city whereby they shall not be left in want. Therefore there is no possibility under any circumstances of these particular individuals ever being able to take advantage of the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act. There must be many other cases in which a similar state of affairs exist. It is not a case of unemployment insurance, so far as these people are concerned; rather it is purely a matter of another tax.
The suggestion I make to the minister and the administration is that the whole matter should be reviewed, in order that persons who obviously are not those who should come within the purview of the Unemployment Insurance Act be eliminated from the operation of its provisions.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member spoke about the cost of the administration of unemployment insurance. I do not need to tell him that the work of the unemployment insurance administration has been greatly enlarged since bringing into being the selective service organization. It has for its purpose the direction and placement of people in civilian employment. At this time seven-twelfths of the work of the unemployment insurance machinery are connected with what one could call purely war duty. The remaining five-twelfths are engaged in the normal daily work of the unemployment insurance commission.
The machinery of that commission must.' operate very much like a fire brigade. The mere fact that we have a very high level of employment at the present time is one of the reasons why the administrative costs appear to be somewhat larger than they might otherwise be, under what some people might call normal conditions. It was estimated when the bill was before the house, and before the special committee, that the per capita cost per year for insurable persons would be about $2.50. That figure compares very favourably, on an average, with costs in the United States. In some states the costs are higher. For instance, in Nevada, I believe they run to something like $5 a year, while in New York

Supply-Labour
where the mass is much greater, and the population more highly concentrated, I believe it is about $3, although when I give that figure I speak from memory.
We have good coverage. My hon. friend says that some people feel they should not pay into the unemployment insurance fund, because they will never be out of work. I d^ not think any person should take that position. We have seen fluctuations in the activities of banks, railroads and what are sometimes called sheltered employments, where employees have been thrown out of work. The whole basis of insurance is predicated on staggering the risks. My hon. friend probably has some life insurance and he must die to win. I am sure my hon. friend does not want to die; he would rather lose.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He should take out a Canadian government annuity.


Humphrey Mitchell: But if he should die, his estate would get the money the same as with ordinary insurance. My hon. friend can see quite clearly that you cannot have insurance dealing with anything unless the risks are staggered. In the face of life insurance some people die sooner than others; in the case of unemployment insurance, unfortunately some people are out of work more than others.
It is an old story. People take the position that because at the moment they are fully employed they should not contribute to the fund. We know what happened from 1930 to 1939, and that is no argument why a person should not be covered by unemployment insur- [DOT] ance. If I had my way, and I am speaking personally, every person in this country who was gainfully employed would come within the four corners of this legislation. I hope to see the day when that will come around. At the moment there are about 2,500,000 people covered by unemployment insurance benefits.
Investigations are being carried on by the advisory committee which was established by law with the intent of increasing the coverage of unemployment insurance so that many callings and avocations which many people think should be covered by this necessary protection will be brought within the orbit of this legislation, I hope in the not too distant future.


Alfred Henry Bence: Are permanent civil servants of the dominion government covered by unemployment insurance?


Humphrey Mitchell: No.


Alfred Henry Bence: Why are they not covered?


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend knows they are covered by many other things which the average citizen has not available to him. Their holidays I would say are generous in
comparison with those given in industrial undertakings. The allowance made for sickness is generous. It is not as generous as some people think it should be, but it is generous when compared with that granted to people employed in industrial undertakings. Then they have a superannuation scheme which takes care of them in their old age. Then, to go a step farther, we find that civil servants, national, provincial and municipal, do not come under the regulations of the war labour board which regulates wages and other matters.


Alfred Henry Bence: That is the very point I was making. As a matter of fact the minister is really answering his own statement by the explanation he has given in connection with dominion government employees. I was discussing the case of employees who would not be out of employment.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend cannot say that.


Alfred Henry Bence: The minister cannot say that dominion government employees will not be out of employment. If it is right for one, surely it is right for the other. I pointed out to him the case of certain municipal employees. The minister has referred to sickness insurance, superannuation and all that kind of thing. These employees have all those benefits, and yet they were ordered to pay part of their wages or salaries into the unemployment insurance fund. There is no possibility of their ever being able to take advantage of it.


Humphrey Mitchell: At one time I worked for the hydro commission in Hamilton. That was a large organization and I never heard the question raised there that is being raised by my hon. friend. Personally I would willingly pay into a fund of this description in order to stagger the risks.


Alfred Henry Bence: Then everybody should pay.


Humphrey Mitchell: Absolutely.


Alfred Henry Bence: But they do not.


Humphrey Mitchell: You are speaking about civil servants. My hon. friend is a lawyer and he understands as well as I the position of persons in the employ of the crown. That applies to those in the employ of the dominion, in the employ of the United States government and the government of Great Britain or of any country where there is a civil service and a democratic form of government. I am not going to labour the point because he knows it as well as I do.


Mrs. CASSELMAN:: The minister referred, to extending the benefits of unemployment insurance and I should like to say a word about the possible extension to women. Sub*
529S
Supply-Labour

committee No. 6 of the reconstruction committee under Doctor James reported in 1943 that there were about 1,200,000 women employed. Of that number only about 700,000 came under unemployment insurance, leaving about 500,000 not covered. A good many of those were household workers which I understand is a hard group to organize. Some study has been given to this in certain women's organizations, and if the act is to be extended it would be of great benefit to these household workers if (they were brought under the legislation.
Out of the 700,000 who are covered, which is the number reported for 1941-42, something like one-quarter are receiving minimum wages. If they ever have to draw unemployment insurance they would get a bare subsistence. Of that same number, some one-third are women under nineteen years of age. There is a definite problem in relation to the employment of women.
When changes are made in the unemployment insurance legislation I ask that special consideration be given to extending the benefits to women. I think this is one of the best social security measures ever brought in, and I hope it will be extended to wofnen, especially those in the lower brackets, and within a short time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In connection with the matter raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon City I should like to remind the minister that the reason why some employees who feel they are in fairly secure employment complain about paying unemployment insurance is that they observe that certain other classes of people-I am not referring to civil servants-in the higher income brackets-


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend is not objecting to the insurance principle?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not at all; I am simply trying to remind the minister of something he knows quite well because I haye heard him say it.


Humphrey Mitchell: You are treading on dangerous ground.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, no, I know what I am talking about. The reason why people in the positions referred to by the hon. member complain about paying unemployment insurance is that they observe that other people in higher income brackets who are in financial jobs of one kind and another do not have to pay. As a matter of fact, people in the kind of employment referred to by the hon. member for Saskatoon City feel that there is less danger of their becoming unemployed than there is of some of those who are

at present earning good money in speculative types of employment. They feel that when some of those people become unemployed the community as a whole will have to provide for them even though they are making no payments into the unemployment insurance fund.
I am simply suggesting to the minister what he said last year when the act was amended to extend the coverage, namely, that to make it really satisfactory it should be all-inclusive. The minister has indicated that to-night as well. I am suggesting that until the government is prepared to put it on an all-inclusive basis there are bound to be certain groups of employees feeling that they are discriminated against as compared with other groups.
I rose partly to make that observation, partly to call another point to the minister's attention and to ask him whether anything is being done by way of studying it. One of the situations into which many employees run is this. They have been employed for some time and have contributed steadily to the unemployment insurance fund. Then they have to lay off work because of illness. I am not referring to cases of illness that are covered by workmen's compensation but illness that throws a man out of work through no fault of his own. Despite the fact that they have made contributions to the unemployment insurance fund, they find that they cannot draw benefits because their unemployment is due to sickness rather than to there being no jobs for them. A good many cases of this kind have been brought to my attention and I have taken them up a number of times with the departmental officials in Winnipeg, but it is not necessary to continue doing so because the story is the same every time. But even though we try to explain to these employees that they have been paying premiums to cover unemployment due only to there being no jobs for them and not premiums to cover unemployment through sickness, still it is hard for them to understand. That simply underlines the fact that this is no time to stop and pat ourselves on the back concerning the social legislation that has been enacted thus far. This is a time to be moving still further forward. What we need is a social security programme that will cover all the things that assail our people. For the average worker it is just as tough a blow when his income stops because he cannot work through sickness as when it stops because there is no job. I hope that as a result of the experience which the unemployment insurance commission has had thus far they may have been giving some study to the question of extending the benefits under this

Supply-Lab our
act to cover some protection of the income of persons who have to lay off work because of illness. I should like to know whether any study has been given to that phase of the subject.


Humphrey Mitchell: First things first. My hon. friend was sympathetic with those people who do not want to pay unemployment insurance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was stating their case.


Humphrey Mitchell: You were playing both ends against the middle. I know something of the attitude of industrial organizations in this country toward unemployment insurance, and it is not the attitude that was taken by my hon. friend, who was trying to sympathize in a quiet sort of way with the fellow who does not want to pay into the fund. Perhaps the hon. member for Cape Breton South does not know or share the opinion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
The other question raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was a legitimate one in connection with the rule that when you are ill you do not get paid the benefits. That principle was clearly understood and fully discussed when the unemployment insurance resolution was introduced in the House of Commons. There was no objection taken to that principle when the bill was passed. Health insurance is one thing; unemployment insurance is another. In Great Britain they have a health insurance plan and an unemployment insurance plan. I am not arguing the sentimental point of view at the moment; I am discussing the insurance point of view.
The hon. member for Edmonton East spoke of increasing the coverage under the act. I am all for that. In Great Britain, and I think it is true of Australia and New Zealand but I am not sure of that, domestic servants and farm workers are included, and I see no reason why, after a proper study of their possible inclusion, they might not be brought within the ambit of the unemployment insurance regulations of this country. But sometimes you can move too quickly and rock the edifice you have built up. I think the British way is the best way. There they started off unemployment insurance in 1906 by covering just seven trades, and they were very fortunate, shortly after passing the act, in moving into a most prosperous period for the building trades, which was one of the first group of workers to be brought under the act. Gradually a great fund was built up, and the coverage of their act has been widely extended until to-day about thirteen million people come under their act.
I think our method of approach is the sound one and we should study carefully before we include other groups of employees within the four corners of our legislation. I am all for that method of approach. Some people-I do not think my hon. friend is one of them-would rather go ahead in a hurry and make mistakes. There is always a class of people who say: Go ahead1 and cut the red tape and' let us have action immediately. If you did that you would find that actuarial difficulties would arise and you might end up in the ashcan. We are taking steps by order in council to investigate and make recommendations with respect to increased coverage, and before twelve months are passed we may have brought many more groups of employees within the scope of this essential legislation. I want to say this, and you can use it politically if you wish to, that I have no sympathy whatever with the individual who does not want to assume his proper responsibility in upholding this very necessary legislation that wt have on the statute books to-day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall not argue with the minister's attempt at humour in the first part of his remarks just now except to say that I agree with him in his concluding comments. But the point is that if you are going to say that to some groups in this country you should say it to all, and if the minister really agrees with that, we are not very far apart.
With respect to unemployment due to sickness,, I was appealing to the minister on the very basis on which he has indicated he wishes to proceed, namely, one step at a time. The minister knows that I feel, and we of this group feel, that what we must arrive at is social security legislation that provides complete coverage, and what I was suggesting to the minister at this stage of the game was simply one further step, namely, that employed persons who become unemployed and lose their income because of illness might be covered by the terms of the act. What I am thinking about is protection of the income of the worker so that he will have some income even though he is unemployed through sickness, as well as when he is unemployed because there is no work for him. I suggest to the minister that what I was asking for was right up his own alley. I was asking for the one next step that might be pursued by the unemployment insurance commission, and it was my hope that study might be in progress at the present time on that very point.


Frederick Clayton Casselman: Sickness benefits are entirely different from unemployment insurance benefits. One of the underlying conditions

Supply-Labour
of unemployment insurance is that the person must be available for work. In New Zealand and Australia, I believe, sickness benefit is separate also from health insurance. It is a different kind of benefit. And as will be seen, unemployment insurance requires a different form of machinery from that for sickness benefits, which brings in the medical man and so on.


Clarence Gillis: I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that unemployment insurance is merely one part of the social security programme. I believe that ultimately-and I hope it will not take as long as it did in Britain to arrive at that point-we shall have to have an over-all social security plan. This is merely one phase of it. I am reasonably sure that that is coming. If this government does not implement it some other government will. That is the trend of thought in Canada to-day. I understand the department is investigating the whole problem.
Last session I raised with the minister the question of the returning service man who goes into an insurable industry. Under the terms of the act at that time-it may have been changed since-he must have had ninety days employment and have made fifteen weekly contributions to the fund before he is entitled to benefit. We were led to believe when this act was passed that all contributions for those- in the armed services were being made by the government, and most of the boys who came out assumed that they had full protection in so far as the Unemployment Insurance Act was concerned. We ran into the first problem, I think, in Nova Scotia, where many of the men released from the services took employment in a mine which closed before they had made the necessary number of contributions, and when they applied for their unemployment insurance they were faced with that clause in the act which precluded them from benefits. It was quite a shock to them, and I believe that at that time the Minister of Pensions and National Health said it was news to him. When I brought the matter up he said he did not think the act worked in that way. The Minister of Labour said much the same thing; and it was a surprise to me until I went over it again. Both ministers, since both are concerned, promised at that time consideration with a view to having that condition corrected, holding that if we were making a contribution for those in the service we should make it and give them complete coverage when they came out. Has anything been done with respect to changing the act?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does my hon. friend mean the clause which requires that a man shall have worked for fifteen weeks before he is entitled to the benefit?


Clarence Gillis: Yes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That has not been changed.


Clarence Gillis: Then I think it should be
corrected. It is a piece of gross injustice.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is a provision! in order in council P.C. 7633 for those who are out of work temporarily and do not qualify, in case they go out of employment within the fifteen weeks.


Clarence Gillis: That is a duplication of machinery. It would be much better to deal with the matter by way of unemployment insurance.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940.
109. Advances to workers under section 91 of the act, $50,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I understand that this is money provided so as to be able to advance travelling expenses to employees who are directed to take employment elsewhere than in their home communities. Is it not true that there is an order in council under which an actual grant is made in some cases for travelling expenses, rather than a loan as is provided under this item; and if that is the case, on what basis is the decision made as to whether an employee directed to report away from home receives a loan or a grant toward his travelling expenses?


Humphrey Mitchell: We are not using this grant at all. My hon. friend will see that we did not use any of this money last year. We are making advances to people going to different parts of the country, under the War Measures Act and the war appropriation in that regard, and that is the method of procedure. The amount of money we advance is, if I may use that term, only chicken-feed in comparison with the amount of money we have advanced to permit people to travel from one end of the country to the other.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What I was inquiring was with respect to these advances. Are they, under these war-time conditions, loans, or are they grants that do not have to be paid back?


Humphrey Mitchell: They are grants which do ncrt have to be paid back.


Clarence Gillis: I am wondering about that because I have had a lot of correspondence.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
You recruit a lot of people in one part of the country to go to the central provinces. An advance is made by national selective service or by the company for transportation purposes. That fare or that advance is recoverable under certain circumstances, is it not?


Humphrey Mitchell: Wherever we make a grant it is done by the government itself. Sometimes the employer pays it, and as a rule when the employer pays it the advance is made under certain conditions. If a person comes from Vancouver to Toronto and has the money advanced by the employer he wants some guarantee that the employee is going to stay some time with him, and the arrangement generally arrived at is, "If you stay for six months, or nine months, or twelve months, the amount of the advance will not be recoverable." In some instances it is repaid week by week. The longer you stay, the less the advance until it is wiped out completely.


Clarence Gillis: Could the minister give us any figures as to what, if anything, was recovered under this vote? I should like to know the amount advanced and the amount recovered.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have not the figures in my possession. It is not under this vote; it is under the war emergency programme vote. If my hon. friend wants it and raises the matter on the orders of the day or otherwise I shall be glad to give him the information.


Clarence Gillis: I have had letters about girls who came to Kitchener or Brantford to take employment, and who, because of ill health or for some other reason, could not stay. They wanted to go home, but were without sufficient funds, and their parents were put to considerable expense to pay the return transportation. Also there are cases where hospital bills have accumulated.


Humphrey Mitchell: No one is more sympathetic than myself to young people, particularly young women who come a long distance, say from Nova Scotia to Kitchener. Under a big organization like selective service or the labour department occasional incidents of this kind are inevitable. I have not all the wise people in the Department of Labour, although I have some of them. I think my hon. friend will find that when complaints are made and when they are justified the settlement or the arrangement which is finally adopted is always in favour of the worker. I know the case at Kitchener of which the hon. member speaks. That was some time ago, about eighteen months, was it not?


Clarence Gillis: No; there is at least one within the last month.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know of that
case.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
3J3. Publicity and advertising in Canada and abroad other than in the United Kingdom, $88,000.
Gordon Graydon: With respect to "publicity and advertising in Canada and abroad other than in the United Kingdom", this is an item with regard to which the minister might very properly make a detailed statement, because the other night we heard some criticism and some suggestions with respect to advertising which Canada has had in the United Kingdom. I take it, from the increase of $55,000, that the government is making some move in the direction of enlarging its advertising programme for the post-war period. Is the minister prepared to give a statement with regard to the details?


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: This item is for publicity and advertising in Canada and abroad other than in the United Kingdom.


Gordon Graydon: That is what I said. Perhaps the minister was not listening. I said that there had been some criticism of the advertising in the United Kingdom, but that I believe was in connection with the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture. This, however, as I understand, is elsewhere than in the United Kingdom, and it is in that field that I should like to have the minister's statement covering the details.


James Angus MacKinnon: The purpose of the vote is twofold. In the first place, one of its objects is to acquaint the Canadian public generally, and businessmen and executives particularly, with the services rendered by the Department of Trade and Commerce and to acquaint Canadian manufacturers and exporters with information in connection with shipping restrictions and quotas, both import and export. The second purpose, in coordination with the commercial intelligence service, is to create good will and to induce importers to study Canada as a potential market when peace has been declared. The regular weekly Canadian newsletter, which contains information respecting various Canadian activities, is distributed among trade commissioners wherever they are located, and in some cases it is translated by them into the language of the area in which they reside. In addition, a digest of reports from trade commissioners, entitled Commercial



Supply-Trade and Commerce
Intelligence News, is distributed weekly throughout the dominion. Certain advertising is also placed in various publications throughout the year, both in Canada and abroad, exclusive of Great Britain. The appeal in this advertising is addressed almost exclusively to executives.


Gordon Graydon: Executives?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes. As regards advertising in Canadian newspapers, trade, industrial and financial papers and magazines, there is ample evidence throughout the world that exporting countries are giving serious thought to post-war markets. It is deemed advisable, therefore, that Canadian exporters should be informed during the coming year of opportunities which await them in the post-war period. Hence the need for an additional $15,000 to advertise in Canadian newspapers, trade, industrial and financial papers and magazines. In the pre-war period, 1939-40, this vote amounted to $70,000. As regards advertising abroad, exclusive of Great Britain, the increase in the vote is to provide for advertising in Latin-American countries should it be deemed opportune during the coming year. This fund will also provide for reprinting the Handbook of Canada in the Spanish and Portuguese languages. I may say that this last item was bound to be of great use in the other countries of this hemisphere and is being taken advantage of extensively.


Gordon Graydon: What is the purpose of advertising so extensively here? Would it not be better to advertise more in other countries if we expect to deal with those countries and to expand our trade to them? The minister might give some answer to that.


James Angus MacKinnon: Of
the $88,000, $50,000 is for use abroad.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
SH. Weights and measures inspection service, $428,950.
Gordon Graydon: How many prosecutions
have there been under this service in the last year?


James Angus MacKinnon: I
have not the actual number, but there have been a substantial number of prosecutions in connection with light-weight sales.


Gordon Graydon: Do I take it that prosecutions have been on the increase?


James Angus MacKinnon: They are being watched very carefully. Prosecution does not always follow. The particulars are gone into carefully to determine whether there is evidence of a deliberate attempt at

short weight. In many cases carelessness results in underweight and sometimes overweight. But I do not think I can say there has been a tendency to an increase in the prosecutions, nor has the necessity for them increased recently.


Mr. PERLEY:: How often do they inspect the scales in the elevators in western Canada?


James Angus MacKinnon: An effort is made to inspect all those scales once a year.


Ernest Edward Perley: How many inspectors are
there west of Fort William?


James Angus MacKinnon: This service is spread right across Canada with headquarters and substantial staffs in at least every capital city and in most of the major cities. I am informed there are 114 on this staff. I would have thought there were more than that.


Ernest Edward Perley: That covers what year?


James Angus MacKinnon: The staff is 114.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
345. Exhibitions, $91,622.
Mr. WRIGHT:: At what exhibitions is the Department of Trade and Commerce providing displays at the present time? I notice in the details on page 187, of the estimates, under "London" there appears the following: "Exhibition decorators, grade 2: two at $2,040." I presume that is at London, England? I am wondering if there are any exhibitions carried on in London, England, at the present time and what this item covers.


James Angus MacKinnon: In answer to the latter part of the hon. member's question with reference to London, at one time we had the head office of our exhibition commission in the city of London. That has been closed out since the war started and moved to Ottawa. We have a warehouse there which it is necessary to maintain, and for that reason there is a staff of three provided. According to London regulations there has to be some person in continuous charge of these establishments.


Howard Charles Green: In the particulars on page 187 there is an item which reads as follows: "Participation in exhibitions in Canada, United States and abroad, $50,000." Why is that necessary in war time?


James Angus MacKinnon: The exhibition department has been fairly active

Supply-Trade and Commerce
in various ways, although we did not spend anything like the amount asked for last year. During the past year we had the Canadian naval war exhibition which I think all hon. members saw in various parts of Canada. It was shown at the Chateau Laurier in Ottawa.


Howard Charles Green: Why is that not a war vote?


James Angus MacKinnon: That was prepared by the exhibition department of the Department of Trade and Commerce for the Department of National Defence for Naval Services and in conjunction with that department. It was shown all across Canada. Then there was the Canadian war display at the Museau of Science and Industry at Rockefeller centre in New York city. There was a salvage exhibit prepared by the exhibition branch at the Royal York Hotel, Toronto, from June 8 to June 11. Similar exhibits were shown at Riverside park in Toronto and at Hamilton. There was a window installation in connection with the navy exhibit at the Canadian National terminal in Montreal.


Gordon Graydon: Is that for recruiting?


James Angus MacKinnon: This was a naval exhibit. I suppose it would be for that purpose. Then there was a "Women-in-the-War" show at Hearns auditorium, New York city, the1 Victory Loan Indicator at Ottawa, the Rhode Island School of Design exhibit at Providence, Rhode Island, a Joint Armed Forces exhibit at Montreal.


Howard Charles Green: Are we exhibiting in Rhode island.


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: What for?


James Angus MacKinnon: A
very small item, just a matter of photographs.


Howard Charles Green: Would not most of that work be covered by the salaries paid to the men in the branch? I am asking about this item of $50,000 for participation in exhibitions in Canada, United States and abroad. I should like to know how much was spent last year and how it is proposed to spend $50,000 this year?


James Angus MacKinnon: Between $16,000 and $17,000 was spent. The balance was left. We are asking for this larger amount this year on the possibility that if the war is over we may start in on an aggressive campaign as was done before the war.


Howard Charles Green: The year is nearly half over now.


James Angus MacKinnon: No; a year in advance.
100-333*


Howard Charles Green: Is that the only reason why this $50,000 vote is asked for, in the hope that the war will be over?


James Angus MacKinnon: So that we shall have the money to proceed with this programme if and when the war is over.


Gordon Graydon: How much money was spent on the New York exhibit that the minister speaks of?


James Angus MacKinnon: The Museum of Science and Industry display? The hon. gentleman just picked out the one item on which there was no expenditure during the past year. The work had been provided for before and had been carried on. There was no actual disbursement for that item last year.


Gordon Graydon: Is there any provision for
this year?


James Angus MacKinnon: Just the amount to be voted, if it is necessary. I am told that over half a million people saw this exhibit last year. If it is necessary to bring it up to date the money will be available.


Gordon Graydon: What kind of exhibit was it?


James Angus MacKinnon: I have not seen it myself, but I am told it tells the story of the army, the navy and the air force; it tells the story of Canada's participation in the war.


Gordon Graydon: That is exactly what I suspected it would be. Why would that not be part of the programme of the wartime information board?


James Angus MacKinnon: We have been pleased to be asked by various other branches of the government for the services of our exhibition branch which consists of experienced men whose work is somewhat reduced for the time being. We are glad to have them do work for those other branches on exhibits during the slack period. I think the work is being done for other branches of the government.


Howard Charles Green: Has the government no set plans for spending any of this $50,000?


James Angus MacKinnon: I am told that there is a possibility of exhibits being shown in United States and in Latin-America, but our participation in them will depend on how soon the war is over. At the present time there are just actual plans for exhibits at the Medical and Surgical Exhibit of the Army, Navy and Royal Canadian Air
Supply-Trade and Commerce

Force, the Merchant Marine Exhibits and various other exhibits which are in course of construction-


Howard Charles Green: How much are those going to
cost?


James Angus MacKinnon: I have not the figures on that, but it is only a small part of the amount being asked for. The amount we are asking for this year is to take care of the possible exhibits that we shall be able to put on.


Howard Charles Green: Does the minister not think this would 'be a good place to save $50,000?


James Angus MacKinnon: No, I do not. We are not going to spend it unless we need it. We held over $33,'000 of it last year, and I can assure the committee that each item will be very carefully considered.


Howard Charles Green: It seems to me that might have been cut to $15,000 this year.


James Angus MacKinnon: Not very well.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: The minister says that $17,000 was spent last year.


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes.


James Arthur Ross: And that it was for advertising the armed services.


James Angus MacKinnon: And other items I have mentioned.


Gordon Graydon: Of course, a lot of that advertising in connection with the armed services would be connected with the costly recruiting scheme we have in Canada, would it?


James Angus MacKinnon: I am told it has nothing to do with Canadian recruiting.


Howard Charles Green: The estimates for the
Department of Trade and Commerce have been increased by several hundred thousand dollars in the present fiscal year. Why is that? Surely that should not be so.


James Angus MacKinnon: To a large extent the Department of Trade and Commerce is a peace-time department. But to an extent not realized by many people this department has been actively engaged in various branches of war work. We are asking for a great deal more money this year on account of the expansion we have planned, and are putting into effect, in connection with various branches of the department. In one

item there is an increased expenditure for next year of over $300,000. That is for the enlargement and extension of trade commissioner services. I mention only. that one item, in passing.


Howard Charles Green: Why is there that increase?


James Angus MacKinnon: To provide for the appointment of additional trade commissioners in various parts of the world, to strengthen trade commissioner offices in centres where they are now established, and to provide in the department for specialists. In the commercial intelligence branch we have at the present time four commodity men who deal with exports in connection with certain commodities. We are setting up a staff of seven or eight additional experts in these commodity lines, decentralizing the work, and increasing the staff so as more properly to take care of the expanding trade we hope to have.


Howard Charles Green: Is that not again dependent upon the war ending? Many of our trade commissioners have had to be called in, because of countries being occupied. Is not that extension dependent entirely upon the war's being over?


James Angus MacKinnon: No, it is not. We would be subjected to keen criticism if we waited until the war was over before laying our plans. Our competitors, including the mother country and the United States, have enlarged their similar services in all parts of the world, and particularly in this hemisphere. In countries of Latin-America that is particularly so. For instance, in Chile we have a staff of eight, while the United Kingdom has 250 and the United States, 400 or 500. If there is any criticism which could be leveled at the Department of Trade and Commerce it is that we have not at an earlier stage sought more money for the extension of this service.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
346. Publicity and advertising in the United Kingdom, $17,320.
Mr. JACKMAN:: Would a subject such as the possibility of exporting Canadian bacon and other products to Great Britain after the war come under the Department of Trade and Commerce, or is that a responsibility shared jointly with the Department of Agriculture? Then, what is the Department of Trade and Commerce doing to make an analysis of the British bacon market before the post-war period?	'

Supply-Trade and Commerce


James Angus MacKinnon: I think my colleague the Minister of Agriculture answered that question when the estimates of his department were before the committee.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Whose responsibility is it?


James Angus MacKinnon: At
the present time British bacon requirements are being taken care of by an arrangement or an agreement between this government, through the Department of Agriculture, and the British government. That covers total 'bacon requirements from Canada. The Department of Trade and Commerce is not at the present time arranging for any special publicity or advertising in connection with the use of Canadian bacon.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Would it be the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Commerce or of the Department of Agriculture to endeavour to find a market for our bacon in the post-war period?


James Angus MacKinnon: The Department of Trade and Commerce would ordinarily find a market ; but in this case the market has been arranged for with the United Kingdom.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: It has been arranged for the period of the war, when we have a ready market for all possible bacon we can send. But if we are to keep our agricultural economy up to any reasonable standard, and particularly in the western provinces-including Alberta, which has become the greatest hog-raising province in Canada-we must ensure to the farmers - of this country a fairly substantial proportion of the British bacon market after the war. I do not think we are too early in seeking to lay a foundation for that market, and I think the least that could be done by the Department of Trade and Commerce would be to make an analysis of the best means of retaining, let us say a proportion to the extent of 500,000,000 pounds of the 1,300,000,000 pounds that Great Britain normally uses. If we find that Danish competition comes in and ousts the Canadian farmer from the market there will be considerable hardship in Canada among those farmers who at the present time are receiving substantial incomes from hograising.
I suggest, therefore, that the minister should see to it that everything possible is being done to secure that market, and that he should make an appropriation sufficient to. see that the idea is carried out. May I suggest, too, that inasmuch as some of the money for such analysis would be spent in Great Britain, the
expenditure of that money, which would be in sterling, would not cost Canada anything, because of the large amount of sterling we must write off from year to year. Surely in view of the service we are now rendering toward1 feeding the people of Great Britain we are entitled to make a survey and to find out what we can do to retain a fair proportion of that British bacon market.


James Angus MacKinnon: I am not sure whether the hon. member realizes that as much bacon as can be shipped from Canada is being shipped-


Harry Rutherford Jackman: At the present time.


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes, ax the present time, and for two years hence. That arrangement has been made. The Minister of Agriculture is not in his seat at the moment, and I am not just sure whether it is to apply for two years after the termination of the war, or two years hence.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: It is two years from now.


James Angus MacKinnon: Before the war an extensive programme along this line had been conducted by the Department of Trade and Commerce, but that ceased when the war commenced. The necessity for or the usefulness of it ceased at that time. It is possible, of course, that it may be resumed, at which time the hon. member's remarks will receive due consideration.


Ernest Edward Perley: The department has no
representative in the United Kingdom, so far as I can learn from the details as set out at page 1S7 of the estimates. It is pointed out there that there are three clerks only, and the remainder of the sum is for publicity. I find that $15,700 is for publicity, and that there is no representative in the United Kingdom.


James Angus MacKinnon: On publicity, no.


Ernest Edward Perley: What is the form of
publicity?


James Angus MacKinnon: The $15,700 is detailed as follows: First, an item of $1,700 for the maintenance of the Canadian court at the Imperial institute. That is the donation we make to that society. Then we make a donation of $1,000 to the Scottish Building Centre. We spent about $7,500 in advertising in Canada's Weekly, and $5,000 in general publicity. Office expenses amounted to $500, making a total of $15,700.


Ernest Edward Perley: It is principally ads in newspapers; there are no pamphlets for distribution or anything like that?
Supply-Trade and Commerce


James Angus MacKinnon: Our trade commissioner's staff in the old country-look after this. There is no special item of salaries chargeable to this vote except for one stenographer.


James Arthur Ross: Following the minister's statement with regard to bacon, I wonder if he can say anything about shipments of beef. I understand that recently a contract was negotiated with the United Kingdom for the shipment of beef. I had some doubts about this and I notice from the press that the fly in the ointment is the matter of cold storage space for shipment. I have never been able to see how we could ever maintain a market in Great Britain for our beef unless we had sufficient cold storage space. Can the minister give us any information he has in connection with the shipment of frozen beef to Great Britain in the near future?


James Angus MacKinnon: That is a matter I shall have to discuss with the officials of the department. The remarks I made regarding bacon will apply pretty well to beef. My understanding is the Department of Agriculture has effected a similar agreement in connection with beef, but I am not in position to comment at the moment upon the point raised by the hon. member for Souris.


Percy Ellis Wright: Is the Canadian government responsible for the arrangements of shipping space on these products, or does the British government make the arrangements?


James Angus MacKinnon: The British government. It is taken as from Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Si7. Dominion bureau of statistics-administration, $92,525.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister give some explanation for the increase in this vote for administration? Since we are dealing with administration, perhaps I may ask a question with respect to the next item. There is an increase of $119,755 in that item, and I think other hon. members as well as myself will be interested in knowing what is involved in the connection with the Inter-American Statistical Institute.


James Angus MacKinnon: This increase in administration is largely due to the demands made upon the bureau by various departments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In connection with the war?
rMr. Perley.]


James Angus MacKinnon: In connection with the war. It is largely the wartime prices and trade board.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In a sense it should have been a war vote.


James Angus MacKinnon: The Inter-American Statistical Institute was started some four years ago, and the bureau of statistics thought it would be of great benefit to belong to it, both from the practical point of view and from the point of view of international relations on this hemisphere. There are branches in Latin-America and they were anxious for Canada to be represented. About fourteen American countries are members.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Has the bureau a statistician collecting figures on the national income as opposed to the figures collected by the Bank of Canada or the Department of Finance?	.


James Angus MacKinnon: We have a capable man now, but we are getting a man more experienced in financial statistics.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: There is no change as compared with last year?


James Angus MacKinnon: I am told that the appointment is pending and may be made within a week or so.


James Alexander Marshall: Throughout the auditor ' general's report mention is made of considerable amounts of money that are paid to the International Business Machine company of Toronto for the rental of machines. According to the auditor general's report for 1943 the Department of Trade and Commerce paid the International Business Machine company of Toronto $45,562 in one instance and $23,250 in another. If different branches of the government find it necessary to spend such large sums of money I would think it would be more profitable for the government to purchase these machines outright and service them themselves. Has the minister considered any such scheme? I notice on page Y-19 of the auditor general's report for 1943 the following under "comments":
Includes payments to F. Belisle and J. T. Richard for royalties on tabulating machines, $2,400.
I think an item of this sort requires an explanation from the minister.


James Angus MacKinnon: 
James Alexander Marshall: What type of machines are they?


James Angus MacKinnon: They are known as the Hollerith machines, which are used extensively in census work and work of that kind. Just recently, through the treasury board, a survey was made in all branches of the government using these machines to see if there was a uniform price for all contracts, and that survey is, I believe, still in progress.


James Alexander Marshall: What about my other question as to paying royalties?


James Angus MacKinnon: If a man makes an improvement to the machine he receives in royalties a certain percentage of the cost of the machine. That is to repay him for his diligence and his expertness in developing labour saving devices. The remuneration in all these cases is fixed by the commissioner of patents.


James Alexander Marshall: Is this the only instance where royalties are paid for this kind of work?


James Angus MacKinnon: It is the only case in this department, but the system is followed to quite an extent in the national research council.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
SJ/8. Statistics, including contribution to the inter-American Statistical Institute, $1,225,800.
Ernest Edward Perley: I hold in my hand the "Monthly Review of the Wheat Situation", issued by the department. What does it cost the department to get this out, and how wide is its distribution?


James Angus MacKinnon: It is not printed but mimeogTaphed; technically it is known as roto printing. I shall be glad to get the information for the hon. member as to the cost and give it to him either in the house or personally.


Ernest Edward Perley: I was just wondering how widely it was distributed and what it costs to produce.


James Angus MacKinnon: Approximately 3,000 copies are printed, and there is a fairly wide distribution, taking into consideration that it goes only to those interested in wheat.


Ernest Edward Perley: It is only distributed in Canada?


James Angus MacKinnon: And to a certain extent outside Canada, to international organizations interested in wheat.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
S 'i'J. Census of population, $592,705.
James Arthur Ross: I do not know whether my question properly comes under this item, but I notice on page 189 of the estimates details in connection with the cost of baking the census in 1941. Would the minister tell us what steps would have to be taken to recognize Canadian citizenship in the taking of the census? During the discussion of the estimates of the Department of National War Services we had a lengthy debate on an item for the development of cooperation in Canadian citizenship. Under another department, the department of immigration, those entering this country and desiring to be naturalized are dealt with. Then the census is taken under the Department of Trade and Commerce, and in the census only racial origin, not Canadian citizenship, is recognized. I have thought for many years that something should be done by the government to recognize Canadian citizenship. Had we done that in past years we would not have many of the difficulties which we have to-day, and the difficulties leading to disunity in this country might have been avoided- if we had recognized Canadian citizenship. I have pointed out in past discussions in this house that United States citizenship has been recognized in that new and cosmopolitan country to the south of us. Would the minister tell us what steps would have to be taken to recognize Canadian citizenship in Canada, and whether so far any steps have been taken to coordinate the work of the various departments dealing with naturalization, racial origin and citizenship?


James Angus MacKinnon: Possibly the hon. member is mixing Canadian nationals and racial origin. Through the census we secure the number of Canadian nationals.


James Arthur Ross: What do you mean by Canadian nationals?


James Angus MacKinnon: The number of people who are legally Canadians by birth or naturalization. In the census, figures are taken as to their racial origin.


James Arthur Ross: Perhaps the minister will explain what constitutes a Canadian citizen in the taking of the census.


James Angus MacKinnon: There is a special act of parliament which defines what a Canadian national is.


James Arthur Ross: What act is it? I find all across Canada people who do not appreciate our not recognizing Canadian citizenship.
Supply-Trade and Commerce


James Angus MacKinnon: I am sure that the Secretary of State would give my hon. friend a copy of the act.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps he could answer the question.


Mr. McLARTY:: I am not sure that I caught the question. I think it referred to taking the census. Citizenship was described not as qua Canadian but qua country of origin. Of course, when we conferred Canadian citizenship in 1914 we conferred nationality not only in Canada, but throughout the commonwealths of the empire. The old from of naturalization papers had application only to Canada. Since 1914, however, they are recognized and have a nationality which extends to all the commonwealths within the British commonwealth of nations. I am afraid that does not give the clear explanation which has been referred to, why a person is described as, perhaps, a Ruthenian in the census, but I am afraid I cannot give any clearer explanation than that.


James Arthur Ross: What I want to know, first of all, is whether a citizen can be recognized as a Canadian, and, if so, what constitutes, not a British subject, but a Canadian citizen.


Norman Alexander McLarty: If I am correct in my
recollection, there was a statute known as the Canadian Nationals Act, passed approximately in 1922. I should not like to give a definite answer about it. I did not expect to participate in this discussion. I think, however, the Canadian Nationals Act gives a clear definition.


James Arthur Ross: Can the Minister of
Justice clear it up? It is a question which is raised all across Canada to-day. I do not want to hold up the estimates, but I should like to have this point cleared up, because a good many people do not appreciate that Canadian citizenship is recognized as such in this country to-day.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I recently looked at the act which is called the Canadian Nationals Act. I think it is unsatisfactory, and it will be desirable to have something more specific in that connection to determine just, what is a Canadian national, how that qualification is acquired, and what it means.


James Arthur Ross: The point is that the question should be determined before we have another census, and provision made whereby such Canadian citizenship caa be recognized.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I believe you will find that a Canadian national is a British subject who happens to be residing in Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am surprised that there has been so much confusion about this matter since the last census The difficulty may be the failure of the authorities to give sufficient publicity to what was the case so far as that census was concerned. I was not a member of parliament at the time the census was taken; I submitted myself for employment in connection with that work as an enumerator, and I have a vivid recollection of this point Among the many columns on that broad sheet we enumerators went around with were the two specific columns which are under discussion now: the one was headed, "Racial origin," the other was headed. "Nationality." Apparently more attention has been attracted to that column, "Racial origin " in which I, for example, who have thirteen generations of forebears on this side of the water, put down "English"; but in the column, "Nationality," Canadian was definitely the term that was not only accepted and recognized but demanded by the regulations which were supplied to the enumerators who went out on that job. The question as to who qualifies as a Canadian has already been referred to by the Minister of Justice when he said that a Canadian is a British subject who is five years domiciled in Canada. I recall cases of people whose domicile formerly had been England, who had not been in this country for five years, and were put down as English so far as nationality is concerned. A person bom in England who had been here more than five years was put down as a Canadian There was no reference on the census sheet to "British subject"; in the matter of nationality it was English, Canadian, American, or what have you. My contention is that the regulations for the taking of the census on this point are satisfactory. I only hope that the confusion which has existed can be cleared up by more publicity being given to the fact that what the hon. member for Souris is rightly asking for is already the case. There is such a thing as Canadian citizenship, Canadian nationality, but even after that has been established one can hardly get away from the fact that if he goes back far enough he has a racial origin which is something other than Canadian, unless he happens to have the honour of being a full-blooded Indian.


Thomas Reid: I think there is a great deal in what the hon. member for Souris has said. The question is not clear at all, and those of us who were bom in the old1 country find that out when we cross to the United States; no matter how long you have lived in this country, if you were not born here, when you enter the United States you are looked upon

Supply-Trade and Commerce
as a citizen of the country in which you were born; and I have always been a little incensed in crossing the line, because personally I have been residing in Canada longer than I lived in Scotland. I remember crossing the line three years ago, and when the United States immigration officer said, " What nationality are you?", I straightened out a little and said; " I am a Canadian." He said, " Oh, no; not with a tongue like that." Be that as it may, the fact remains that the Canadian national is not recognized by other countries; the matter has not been made clear, and I am very glad to hear the Minister of Justice say that he will take note of the act and have it brought up to date. I want to associate myself with the views of the hon. member for Souris.
Item agreed1 to.
Mail subsidies and steamship subventions-
Atlantic ocean.
351.	Canada and South Africa, service between, $100,000.


James Alexander Marshall: Will the minister state whether any sum was paid out of this vote last year? I note that in the report for the year ended March 31, 1943, it is shown that not a penny of this vote was used. Was any sum expended last year, and, if so, what was the amount?


James Angus MacKinnon: We did not need it last year, because there was not any of that shipping on account of the war. The vote is there in the event that we shall need it in this coming year.


Howard Charles Green: Are there any ships out?


James Angus MacKinnon: Canadian government ships are operating on that service at the present time.


Howard Charles Green: There will be no subsidy this year either?


James Angus MacKinnon: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mail subsidies and steamship subventions-
Western local services.
352.	Prince Rupert, B.C., and Queen Charlotte islands, service between, $22,000.
Vancouver and northern ports of British Columbia, service between, $15,000.
Victoria, Vancouver, way ports and Skagway, service between, $10,000.
Victoria and west coast Vancouver island, service between, $10,000.
Harry Rutherford Jackman: Was there an actual
expenditure last year?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: On all these items?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes.



REVISED

Harry Rutherford Jackman: Are any services receiving subventions from the dominion which also receive subventions from any of the provinces?


James Angus MacKinnon: Some of the Nova Scotia services receive small subventions from the province.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mail subsidies and steamship subventions-
353.	Eastern local services, $740,540.
Percy Chapman Black: Has	the
department taken any steps to restore the ferry service between Parrsboro, Kingsport and Wolfville. which has been in operation for forty years. It was contributed to by the provincial and the federal governments in equal amounts. A special boat was built and named after these three towns, ports of call. That boat was known as the Kipawo-representing a combination of the names Kingsport, Parrsboro and Wolfville-and1 I understand it was the only service for which subsidy was discontinued in all Canada. There has always been urgent necessity for that service, but that necessity has been greater in the last few years because of the difficulties in operating motor vehicles-rationing of gasoline and the difficulty of getting tires. The distance by motor is about 150 miles and by the water fifteen miles. Military camps, naval stations and air fields are stationed in this territory, and the service is required by them in addition to the usual traffic. When it was discontinued strong representations were made to the minister from the towns affected as well as the government of Nova Scotia, that the subsidy be revoted and the service continued. There was considerable criticism on the part of the people who are interested in Cumberland and the county of Kings and in the Annapolis valley, and there was criticism of the Minister of Finance, -whose constituency was served. Many people in Nova Scotia felt that the minister did not show that interest which the conditions warranted in seeing that this service was continued. I should like to hear from the minister as to whether the department has plans for the restoration of the service and whether he considers that it was a proper decision to make in refusing to renew the vote a few years ago, in view of the protests made by the people of the towns concerned as well as by the government of Nova Scotia, which contributed fifty per cent of the subsidy and made a request of the government that the service be continued. I should like to have a statement from the minister.


James Angus MacKinnon: I remember very well the circumstances in connection with the cessation of the service. I am told that the vessel .was used largely for



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Trade and Commerce
[Stage Direction]
the carrying of automobiles and tourist traffic, but in any event it was taken over by the government for war purposes. I do not think I have had a complaint, or a request from any source for the resumption of the service, but if there were I doubt whether a boat could be secured at the present time. We have had very great trouble in getting boats for similar services.
Percy Chapman Black: But that boat was built especially for that service and it was named after the three towns.


James Angus MacKinnon: It was taken over for the war purposes.


Percy Chapman Black: Where is it operated now?


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: It was taken over by the Canadian navy.


Percy Chapman Black: Can the
Minister of National Defence for Naval Services inform me what service it is engaged in now?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I do not know where it is at the moment. For some years it has been performing some function in the Canadian navy somewhere on the Canadian coast; I do not know exactly where.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canada Grain Act-
S54. Administration, $100,950.
Mr. BURTON:: I presume the operation of the wheat board is not under this vote?


James Angus MacKinnon: No.


Joseph William Burton: How does the operation of the wheat board work in with the minister's department? Does it make the work of the department easier, or is there more work by reason of it? I am sorry that the opportunity is not available at present to discuss the operations of the wheat board, but I realize that it is not involved in this vote. However, I should like to know how the two work together, whether the operations of the wheat board have facilitated the work of the department, or whether it involves more work?


James Angus MacKinnon: I am advised that the operations of the wheat board do not in any way necessarily add to the work of the board of grain commissioners.
PERLEY : Are we to have an opportunity at all of asking questions about the operations of the wheat board?


James Angus MacKinnon: Recently we had a meeting of the agriculture

committee at which we had officials of the wheat board and they were closely questioned. I do not think that can be pursued under this item.


Ernest Edward Perley: But since the meeting of that committee order in council P.C. 7942 has been passed. I was going to ask whether, after the conclusion of this estimate for the Canada Grain Act, the minister would make a statement or allow one or two questions with regard to the other matter.
Mr. MacKINNON CKdmonton West): I do not know whether I shall make a statement, but I shall be glad to see that the hon. member has an opportunity to ask any questions.


Ernest Edward Perley: The minister knows about the order.


James Arthur Ross: I understand that the grain commission is responsible for the setting of handling charges-elevator charges for storage and general handling charges-and I would ask the minister whether under the act it is necessary that the commissioners receive an application before they can alter the charges or whether they do it on their ojvn, without having received an application to that effect.


James Angus MacKinnon: They can do it on their own initiative.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canada Grain Act-
S55. Operation and maintenance, including inspecting, weighing, registration, etc., $1,596,736.
Ernest Edward Perley: On page 191 of the estimates giving the details it is seen that there has been a considerable increase in the number of samplers, some thirty-three, and the figure is $45,000. Will the minister explain that increase in the number of samplers? They have almost doubled.


James Angus MacKinnon: It is due to the greater movement of grain and many of these samplers are temporary, handling the increased movement.


Ernest Edward Perley: Why do you say: "greater movement of grain?" From time to time the same number of bushels of grain are being marketed, or comparatively the same number. There may be a difference in some years. Why do you need almost double the staff this year as compared with last year?


James Angus MacKinnon: lam advised there was a considerably larger movement last year than there was the year before.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Percy Ellis Wright: I believe that the two railway companies have asked that cars loaded with grain be loaded to capacity. As a result there is a large number of cars going through the Winnipeg yards out of which the grain samplers are not able to obtain a true sample, and the inspection is made at the head of the lakes. Has the minister the number of cars in which this has taken place, where they were not able to make the inspection at Winnipeg and it had to be made at the head of the lakes; also the number of cars in which a reinspection was called because of the unsatisfactory inspection at Winnipeg and the number of cars in which the grade was changed at the head of the lakes because of the calling for this reinspection?


James Angus MacKinnon: I am informed that in all cases a sample is taken at Winnipeg; but in many cases the car is of necessity loaded so full that a proper sample cannot always be taken. Each car is again sampled at the head of the lakes and the two samples compared. I am informed that rarely is there very much difference in the samples.


Percy Ellis Wright: If there are a number of cases where a reinspection has been called for and a change in the grade has been made at the head of the lakes, that information should be available.


James Angus MacKinnon: In the crop year 1941-42 there was a reinspection made of 585 cars; in the crop year 1942-43 there was a reinspection of 577 cars. In the crop year 1941-42 the grade was raised on ninety-one cars; in the crop year 1942-43 the grade was raised on seventy-seven cars. In the crop year 1941-42 the grade was lowered on two cars, and in the crop year 1942-43 the grade was lowered on one car.


Joseph William Burton: To-day are not all terminals equipped with automatic samplers?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes. that is correct.


Joseph William Burton: Has it not been proven that that is a more satisfactory way of getting a correct grade than the probing system? I have been given to understand that the automatic sampler installed in the terminals has proven satisfactory. If that is the case why continue the two systems of taking the samples?


James Angus MacKinnon: The question the hon>. member has just asked has been anticipated, and I may say that the shipper wishes to have information with respect to grade as soon as possible. That is why a sample is taken at Winnipeg. This enables him better to dispose of his grain and also to
100-334i
protect himself with regard to grade. Many cars are too full to sample at Winnipeg and must be sampled at the unloading point.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canada Grain Act-*
356. Canadian government elevators, including equipment, $364,557.
Ernest Edward Perley: How many governmentowned elevators are the government operating, and how many have they under lease? Are there any changes in the terms of leases for the following year? Before the minister answers those questions may I say that I notice on page 192 of the estimates under the heading, "Lands, buildings and works," that there is a considerable decrease. Why is there a decrease of some $80,000? While we were on the previous item I made a computation of the employees. I find there are 610 employees in these three branches. That is quite a large number of employees to carry on the business of the Grain Act. They do not operate many grain elevators. Would the minister give us a statement with respect to the number of elevators, the number under lease and the changes, if any, in the leases and why there are so many employees?


James Angus MacKinnon: It is a little difficult to follow all the questions, but I shall start out and answer the first two questions, in any event. The management and operation of the Canadian government public terminal elevators at Saskatoon, Moose Jaw, Lethbridge, Edmonton, Calgary and Prince Rupert are under the Canadian government. The elevator at Port Arthur, Ontario, has been leased to a private firm, and the renewal of that lease is being considered1 at the present time.


Ernest Edward Perley: On the same terms?


James Angus MacKinnon: No. I can give the hon. member some information along that line. The principal variation as between the two leases is in the matter of responsibility for maintenance costs. I am speaking of the lease that is in existence now and the lease that is in process of negotiation and pretty nearly concluded. The current lease provides in clause 1 (b) that the lessee will:
Keep the demised premises, including the said buildings, terminal separators, machinery, erections, fixtures, tools and other equipment and appurtenances in good and substantial repair, working order and condition, and from time to time replace, renew and reinstate any parts thereof which may become broken, lost, or unfit for use, reasonable wear and tear, and damage [DOT]by fire, lightning, tempest, flood, explosion or unforeseen events occurring through the act of God only excepted.
Alaska Highway


Ernest Edward Perley: What is the gross rent paid annually?


James Angus MacKinnon: I had better continue with this. Further, by paragraph 2 (b) the lessor covenants to:
Make and pay for all major repairs and replacements not necessitated through the negligence of the lessee or its employees.
These two clauses are somewhat at variance and left some doubt as to the responsibility of the lessor and lessee to make various repairs and replacements which became necessary from time to time. The proposed lease, paragraph 5 (2), obligates the lessee to:
Maintain and repair in a proper and workmanlike manner machinery and/or equipment of the lessor installed or which may hereafter be installed.
Paragraph 8 requires the lessee to spend on repairs during the five-year term of the lease $25,000 in the aggregate and not less than $2,000 in each year of the said term.
The lease further provides, paragraph 7 (b) that the lessor will:
Keep the said elevator and other property referred to in schedule "A" hereto attached, in a good state of repair.
Schedule A includes all buildings, except temporary annex and feed warehouse, all railway tracks, except the spur track running from No. 1 track past the feed warehouse to, the bag conveyor, dust collectors-not including motors-except those listed under schedule B which are the property of the lessee.
I may say that a very great deal of work has been put on this lease, and we have been considering it for a considerable time. We advertised the warehouse for lease, and received one tender. We have been negotiating with the tenderer for some weeks.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, July 25, 1944