1946-07-31

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on external affairs-Mr. Bradette.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:
That the name of Mr. Bourget be substituted for that of Mr. Gingues on the standing committee on industrial relations.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 337, for the relief of Marie-Jeanne-Augusta Clement Lajeunesse. Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 338, for the relief of Jeanne D'Arc Guilmette Henchey. Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 339, for the relief of James Arthur Bellows. Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 340, for the relief of Charles Howard Alexander. Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 341, for the relief of Alfred Wade. Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 342, for the relief of Inga Mary Frances Hitching. Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 343, for the relief of Harold Clayton Webb Clout. Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 344. for the relief of Phyllis Thor-burn Rice Colby. Mr. Maybank.


Mr. P. E. WRIGFIT (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker I ask leave to move the adjournment of the house to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the serious situation in western Canada with respect to the shortage of suitable farm machinery for the harvesting 63260-2591
of the present large crop, due largely to the policy of the government in having, during the year 1945, issued export and reexport permits for 20-2 million dollars' worth of Canada's total production of 46-4 million dollars' worth of farm machinery during that year; and having, during the first six months of 1946 issued export permits for $16,382,400 worth of farm machinery, and having during the first five months of 1946 issued export permits for $4,319,626 worth of reaper-threshers-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. gentleman has not the right to make these remarks on his motion.


Percy Ellis Wright: Mr. Speaker, am I not allowed to state the reasons why this matter is urgent?


James Horace King: It is not the practice in presenting a motion for adjournment under standing order 31 to discuss the reasons for the motion at this stage of the proceedings.


Percy Ellis Wright: I do not wish to discuss the matter at this moment. I merely wish to put before you, Mr. Speaker, certain facts which will permit you to decide whether the situation is urgent.


James Horace King: I would ask the hon. gentleman to put his motion before the house without any criticism. If it is adopted he will then have the opportunity in the debate to
say whatever he has to say as long as it is relevant to the motion.


Percy Ellis Wright: I will comply with your wishes, Mr. Speaker. I have just returned from western Canada and I found there a very serious situation with respect to the shortage of farm machinery. I ask leave to move the adjournment of the house to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the serious situation in western Canada with respect to the shortage of suitable farm machinery for the harvesting of the present large crop.


James Horace King: Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. member shall have leave so to move?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
And more than twenty members having risen:


Percy Ellis Wright: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I stated when I first rose, I have just returned from western Canada, where I found a very serious situation with respect to farm
Farm Implements

machinery for harvesting our present crop.
I interviewed a large number of farm machine agents while out there, and found that practically all of them have orders for from one to twenty pieces of farm equipment which they cannot supply at the present time. This is a serious situation in view of the fact that we have a prospective crop of approximately 450,000,000 bushels of wheat coming forward in western Canada-wheat that is urgently needed throughout the whole world.
This situation has arisen because of certain actions of this government. We have heard a lot of discussion of the causes of this serious shortage. We have heard members of the government say and have read in the press throughout Canada that this farm machinery shortage is the result of a shortage of steel, a shortage of pig iron, and various other causes. But in my opinion these are not the real reasons for the present shortage. As I started to say when you called me to order, Mr. Speaker, the shortage is owing mainly to the policy of the government in having during the year 1945 issued export and reexport permits for 20-2 million dollars' worth of Canada's total production of 46-4 million dollars' worth of farm machinery during that year, and having during the first six months of 1946 issued export permits for $16,382,400 worth of farm machinery, and having during the first five months of 1946 issued export permits for $4,319,626 worth of reaper-threshers, of which $2,395,318 worth have been exported to the United States, in consequence of which the present serious situation exists.
Some four weeks ago I received a letter from a returned man in my constituency. While serving overseas for four years his father died and left him a section of land, which he returned to farm. He stated in his letter that he wanted nothing from the government, that all he wanted was the opportunity to buy sufficient farm equipment to do a proper job on that land. He needed a new plough, and asked me if I could get for him a priority for the purchase of it. I was unable to do so. The only thing he could do was to take a loan from the Veterans Land Act administration, thereby obtaining a priority. He did that, but the type of plough he wanted was not available. He wanted a larger type of implement than the Veterans Land Act administration had available for him.
In spite of the fact that this machinery was not available to this veteran we exported from Canada in the first five months in 1945 $2,251,960 worth of disc ploughs, ploughs and plough parts, to the following countries: Belgium, Costa Rica, French Africa, Greece,

Mexico, Morocco, Peru, Dominican Republic, Eire, United Kingdom, Syria, British East Africa, British South Africa, Southern Rhodesia, British India, British Guiana, Jamaica, British West Indies, Newfoundland, Australia, New Zealand-it sounds like a lesson in geography-Argentina, Belgian Congo, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Mexico, The Netherlands, Paraguay, Poland, San Salvador, Santa Domingo, Sweden, Turkey, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, and the United States. Yet we could not supply our own returned men, who have been overseas fighting for this country for the last four years, with the implements of production when they return to this country. I say that is a serious situation, one which this government should be prepared to face.
Why should the government issue to our machine companies permits to export machinery to every country in the world, or practically every country? As a matter of fact I have the list of exports for 1945, which shows that we exported farm machinery to seventy-one countries. I was alarmed at this situation, and I placed certain questions on the order paper with respect to this matter. Not only that, but I asked on the orders of the day on June 20 of this year-Hansard, page 2659 the following question, which was directed to the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
Is the minister aware that there are pools of farm machinery in western Canada and that the machinery is being held and not distributed? Is he aware that this machinery is urgently needed by veterans? In view of the fact that in some cases it is proposed to reship this machinery back to the United States, will the minister make the necessary inquiries and issue the necessary orders to see that this machinery is distributed in Canada and not sent back to the United States?
I received the following answer to my question:
The wartime prices and trade board say that the only "pools" of farm machinery in western Canada are Veterans Land Act pools. No farm machinery is being exported to U.S.A. which can be used in Canada.
Note that sentence.
Export is controlled by the administrator of farm machinery, wartime prices and trade board.
In view of the facts which I have just placed before you, that in reaper, harvesters or combines alone in the first five months of this year we have exported $4,220,14S worth, urgently needed in western Canada, and that we have exported to the United States in that same five months 82,395,318 worth-

Farm Implements


Mr. ABBOTT:: How much did we import from the States?


Percy Ellis Wright: We have imported from the United States $1,392,760 worth, or approximately one million dollars' worth less than we have exported. I want to be fair about this: we have imported from the United States much more farm machinery than we have exported; in fact than we have exported to all the rest of the world, but that does not alter the fact that we have produced a lot of farm machinery in Canada and have exported approximately forty per cent of it to almost every other country in the world, in face of urgent need of machinery right here in Canada to harvest our present crop.


Douglas Charles Abbott: What about other countries which need to grow food to feed themselves?


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes, there are some other countries which need to grow food; but we are exporting to Brazil, Argentina, Spain, Costa Rica,-
Mr.	ABBOTT:	How	much	to	the
Argentine?


Percy Ellis Wright: And to practically every country in the world.
Mr.	ABBOTT:	How	much	to	the
Argentine?


Percy Ellis Wright: We are exporting machinery to build up agriculture in these countries to enter world markets in competition with Canadian agriculture in the next two or three years.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is a pretty selfish argument that my hon. firend is making.


Percy Ellis Wright: The government's policy is a shortsighted policy. We should at least supply our own veterans and our own farmers with the machinery they require. I am not against exporting. Let nobody in this house try to interpret my remarks as opposition to the exporting of farm machinery once we have supplied the needs of our own farmers. But the needs of our veterans and of our farmers should be the first consideration and the first charge on the production of this country, not the obtaining of a market in some foreign country because owing to prevailing exchange rates our manufacturers are able to get a better price for their machinery in those countries than they can get from Canadian farmers.
That is the position we are in to-day in Canada. This government is prepared to back the people who are out to make money through the export market at this time,
irrespective of the needs of the Canadian people. And this applies not only to farm machinery but to a lot of other commodities as well. If I were to quote statistics of exports in the first five months of this year as contained in this publication before me, with regard to the sale of other articles, you would find the same condition existing.


Douglas Charles Abbott: You might quote exports of wheat too, while you are at it.


Percy Ellis Wright: If the minister will just hold his remarks he will have plenty of opportunity to reply to me.


Mr. TUCKER:: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question ?


Percy Ellis Wright: I wish, Mr. Speaker, to continue my remarks.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


Walter Adam Tucker: Is the hon. member afraid to answer questions which are put in order to get information? I wondered if the hon. gentleman had the figures for imports of farm machinery into Canada in the same period.


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes, I have imports and exports. I will give them before I sit down.


Walter Adam Tucker: Do the imports not exceed the exports?


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


Percy Ellis Wright: The hon. member has not yet gone back to Saskatchewan; he cannot override me.


Walter Adam Tucker: Do the imports not exceed the exports? You cannot have it both ways.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: It is a fair question.


James Horace King: Order. I would call the attention of hon. members to the fact that when an hon. member has the floor he should not be interrupted without his permission.


Mr. REID:: We are all having a good time, anyway.


Percy Ellis Wright: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am prepared to answer any reasonable question.


Walter Adam Tucker: Is that not reasonable?


Percy Ellis Wright: But I should like to complete my argument first, and then if there are any questions I shall be quite prepared to answer them.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is no argument.


Percy Ellis Wright: I have plenty of figures here to justify everything I am saying. I have the import as well as the export figures. When
Farm Implements

I placed my question on the order paper with respect to this matter I asked that the imports and exports be given for all farm machinery and farm equipment imported to or exported from Canada, the amounts, the cost, and the countries with which the business was done. I was told here in the house that this would require the work of three stenographers, probably for a week, and would fill several pages of Hansard, and I was asked to withdraw my question. The department very kindly sent certain information to my desk in my room; from that information I have compiled a table, and with your permission and the permission of the house, Mr. Speaker, I should like to have this placed on Hansard.


Thomas Reid: No; it should be read.


Mr. McCANN:: Read it.


James Horace King: Has the hon. member the unanimous consent of the house to place it on Hansard?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Read it.


Percy Ellis Wright: It is quite a table.


James Joseph McCann: You wanted to use it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: You are a good reader; go ahead.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Don't take up your time. One of the rest of us will read it.


Percy Ellis Wright: I can leave it to be dealt with by some of the other members of this group.


Thomas Reid: Good.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: We will put it on record.


Percy Ellis Wright: But I should like to read this table, and I am going to read it. It is not long; it is a record of the exports of farm machinery from Canada during the six-month period ending June 30 in each year, from 1935 to 1946.


Mr. MacKINNON:: Is the hon. member reading from an official document?


Percy Ellis Wright: I am quoting from a document which is headed "Dominion Bureau of Statistics, External Trade Branch, July 13, 1946."


James Angus MacKinnon: I just want to make it clear that the hon. member is reading from an actual table prepared by the bureau of statistics and not from a summary made by him.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am reading from a table prepared by the bureau of statistics and sent to my desk. It shows that between January 1

and June 30, in the years indicated, we exported the following quantities of farm machinery:
1935		
1936		
1937		
1938		
1939	(the first year before the
war)	
1940		
1941		
1942		
<1943	
-1944	
1945	(the first year after the
war)	
1946	(first six months)	
That was four times the amount exported in a similar period in the first year before the war, and yet we cannot obtain farm machinery in the west. We cannot settle veterans on the land because of the lack of machinery. There is something radically wrong with such a situation, and I plead with the government to do something about it. We have not much time now. In only a month we shall be in the midst of harvest in the west, and we need that equipment now. I urge upon the government that they take immediate action to see that these requirements are met in western Canada.
As I said before, I do not wish to be interpreted as being opposed to the obtaining of suitable foreign markets for any of our surplus Canadian products when they are not needed for our own consumption; but where they are needed for our own use, then I say that we should supply our home market first.
Hon. members were asking about our imports of farm machinery. They are very large.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will say they are.


Percy Ellis Wright: Our total imports of farm machinery in 1945 were $50,435,476, and our imports from the United States in the same year were $50,128,617. These are large imports, but that does not alter the fact that we are exporting machinery which we need in this country.


Douglas Charles Abbott: You cannot import without exporting. Trade is a two-way street.


Percy Ellis Wright: The same should apply to all our products. That principle should apply all along the line.


Walter Adam Tucker: Does the hon. gentleman suggest that we should stop exporting machinery? I note there is no desire to have the question answered, but it is a fair one.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Walter Adam Tucker: I should like to ask the
hon. gentleman a question.

Farm Implements


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Percy Ellis Wright: I shall be pleased to answer any question-


Walter Adam Tucker: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Walter Adam Tucker: Does the hon. gentleman
suggest-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No questions.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is socialism.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: They are assuming the government's attitude now.


Percy Ellis Wright: I do not know why our worthy friends are so much alarmed-


Walter Adam Tucker: We are anxious to get the truth.


Percy Ellis Wright: -but I suppose I am treading on their toes. I am prepared to answer questions-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member was asking a fair question.


Percy Ellis Wright: -in an orderly manner, when I have completed my remarks; but not until then. We have large imports of farm machinery, but at the same time we are exporting needed equipment, equipment which we require on our own farms, and we should first meet the needs of our veterans and of our own farmers. When that is done, then we can export all that we can spare. Let us obtain all the markets we can for all the equipment we can manufacture in the country, after we have supplied our own needs.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): If the minister will permit me, before he replies I have a few words to add to what has been said.
The farmers of eastern Quebec have great difficulty in securing agricultural implements from War Assets Corporation, and there is one thing that surprised me when the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave information about Canadian trucks being delivered by UNRRA to other countries, and that is that *we are still at war with Finland. Finland is an enemy country, and our farmers need trucks very badly. How is it that through UNRRA 500 Canadian trucks have been given away to Finland, an enemy country, while our farmers need them so badly? This is one thing that struck me. It is that spirit of internationalism, which I have denounced bitterly, that runs everything in this country.
I should like to have the production of trucks under the control of the Minister of Reconstruction, and he should also have the delivery under him so that Canadians would be served before the enemy. The minister is all right, and he alone should have both controls. The consul of a minor country has more influence than all the members of parliament put together in regard to the disposal of our own property.
Canadian citizens have a mortgage on the production of this country; Canadians should be first served, and if something is left over then we shall be able to serve others. We speak about housing; if housing is far behind it is because many men have not the trucks they need to carry lumber to the mills and the manufactured product to the consumer. These trucks are indispensable. We need them very badly, and yet we send them to an enemy country. Then we speak of the sovereignty of Canada; we speak of Canada being an autonomous country. We are run by Stalin, Bevin, Byrnes, Chiang Kai-shek and Bidault. They are the ones who ran the country. They are the bosses of UNO and the bosses of UNRRA, and what UNRRA says we have to stand for; what UNO says we have to stand for.


Mr. BENTLEY:: But you always vote for them over there, no matter who runs them.


Mr. POULIOT:: I will tell my hon. friend that on all major issues he and the other groups over there support the government, whereas on the loan there were only six of us who voted against the government. My hon. friend voted for the government. There is no possible distinction between the major parties and groups because, on the main issues, they vote together. I wonder if it is the atmosphere of Ottawa. They seem to be magnetized or hypnotized by the power of bureaucracy. How can they dare to denounce bureaucracy when they support bureaucracy every time it drafts legislation which is swallowed by nearly everyone in the house?


Mr. BOUCHER:: Evidently Ottawa has a good influence on the members.


Jean-François Pouliot: Ottawa? No. It is not exactly Ottawa; it is the bad atmosphere of the House of Commons which disturbs the minds of intelligent members. I respect my colleague, but I cannot stand for that kind of policy, the policy of sacrificing Canada to everyone else. There is something else wrong with the distribution of tractors, of trucks and of everything that is under the War Assets Corporation. In eastern Quebec it is impossible to get anything. When we know that a piece of material is to be declared surplus we
Farm Implements

write to the corporation and we are told that it has not been declared surplus. I wrote to the private secretary of one of the ministers that when the request is made by a Quebec easterner instead of by someone from Ontario, or even a foreigner the latter has a better chance to get these goods than a Canadian. How is it we have to write so much to get so little? I do not blame the minister; he is not to blame now because he has not the full control of the whole thing and cannot give us the distribution we would have if this government and this parliament had not that silly policy of giving everything to others without keeping anything for ourselves. That is the policy. Members appear to complain about it, but they supported the so-called external policy of this government, which amounts to nothing for us, because all the dominions of the British empire are run from outside; their sovereignty is an illusion.
Canada had nothing to do with the war with Finland except to declare war. We did not send a man there, but we are sending trucks. We were at war with that country because another power was at war with it. We sent trucks which our farmers are crying for, but they do not get anything. That is the way it stands.
I hope that I shall be permitted to say something to my colleagues about the reform which is necessary in this country. Everybody is for reform, but reform in the abstract, which means nothing at all. When we come down to brass tacks it is easy to count the members who make constructive suggestions to improve conditions in Canada. There is a haze which blurs the eyesight of men who should see clearly through the disorder which exists precisely because of the neglect and carelessness of the members of parliament. I regret it, but the trouble is that no distinction is made between what is important and what is not. It is taken for granted that so-called experts are those who should run this country, men who are not responsible to the people, men who are the products of universities and who are ready to teach the world about what is to be done immediately after they get a degree with a gold seal. And here we are. We listen to them just as if no one knew how to read and write, no one could make a sound decision. I ask hon. members to make their own decisions about everything, to consult their own judgments and act accordingly, and the country will be much better run.
Sometimes it is a very small suggestion which may be accepted. But what is swallowed by the whole House of Commons? It is precisely the product of the intelligentsia which all denounce so bitterly as bureaucracy.

All the laws are prepared by bureaucracy. Members may denounce bureaucracy, but they swallow the draft legislation which is prepared for them, without asking any questions. Sometimes they denounce it, but they do not go to the source of the evil.
When I was on the other side of the house I suggested that we should have a union opposition, an opposition composed of all men of good will-and nearly all members are members of good will.


James Horace King: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: When I say nearly-


James Horace King: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the question before the house is a motion to adjourn the house to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the serious situation in western Canada with respect to the shortage of suitable farm machinery for the harvesting of the present large crop. The remarks of the hon.'member should be relevant to the motion.


An hon. MEMBER:: They never are.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank you, sir. What I just said was the preface to my conclusion. My conclusion is that instead of complaining about the state of things which everybody deplores, members of the House of Commons irrespective of party should unite and decide what the majority wants. In this case I suggest that all members of parliament should unite to give full control to the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe). Give him a trial; give him an opportunity to settle the question as well as he can, notwithstanding the steel strike and the other difficulties which confront us. It is precisely because of the domestic difficulties that we have to be indulgent to the minister. We must not blame him for conditions for which he could not be held responsible. The duty of members of parliament, if they really want what they ask for, is to set aside all party considerations and unite to put the business of the country in good shape. In this particular case it would be very easy. Each member would have only to consult his own judgment and make his own decision, and I am sure a large majority of the members would join together and settle this difficult question of the distribution of farm implements, trucks, and even automobiles.
If one spends his time blaming the Minister of Reconstruction for all he has done to improve manufacturing conditions in this country I do not find it fair. I will not say that it has been done for political considerations, but it should be done for a higher political consideration; it should be done to

Farm Implements
improve the lot of those who are in need, and the need can be shown. How is it that it is impossible to secure advice? We get only criticism. There is ground for criticism.


Mr. BURTON:: The hon. member will not listen to advice.


Jean-François Pouliot: I always listen to advice which is full of common sense, but I never listen to criticism which is full of bitterness. We have a duty to fulfil; we have a duty to help our fellow citizens, to help them right away instead of wasting our time in useless criticism. There should be constructive criticism in order that there shall be useful suggestions to improve the lot of the farmers of Saskatchewan and of farmers all over the country, particularly the farmers of eastern Quebec. I remind my hon. friends of the prairie provinces that they are not the only ones to suffer. In eastern Canada we suffer as much, and my colleagues of Quebec are as much devoted to the cause of the farmers as my colleagues of Saskatchewan may be to the cause of the farmers in their part of the country. But the time has arrived to do something, and if my hon. friend who interrupted me a moment ago has another constructive suggestion to offer, I shall listen to him with delight. If a suggestion is sensible I shall support it; but I should hope that from the fertile minds of so many hon. members something will come to help out the farmer, and not only the farmer but all those who earn their living with implements of any sort.
It is time for us to make a thorough investigation into what is going on. The war expenditures committee has been sitting for a long time; I have read its reports, but there is no improvement. What has been said by the hon. member who moved this motion shows that the work of the committee has not been either practical or profitable to this country, because now we have a state of affairs about which everyone complains, in spite of the fact that this committee has held numerous sittings and heard numerous witnesses. Therefore all I ask my colleagues to do is to think, to listen to the voice of their conscience and to obey their own natural judgment in coming to decisions that will serve this country.


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: Mr. Speaker, I have been in this House of Commons eleven years and I must say I have never heard a more fallacious argument than that advanced by the hon. member who moved the adjournment. He has pictured Canada as a great
reservoir of farm machinery, shipping it in a prodigal way all over the world to the absolute neglect of our own people. The fact of the matter is that Canada is a deficit country in regard to farm machinery.


Percy Ellis Wright: I stated that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


James Horace King: Order.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It has never in its history-


Percy Ellis Wright: On a point of order-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Privilege!


James Horace King: Order.


Percy Ellis Wright: On a point of privilege- may I proceed?


James Horace King: Does the hon. gentleman wish to speak to a point of order?


Percy Ellis Wright: Privilege.


James Horace King: Very well.


Percy Ellis Wright: The minister has just stated that I painted a picture showing Canada as a reservoir of farm machinery.


James Horace King: Order.


Percy Ellis Wright: My point is that this is not the picture I painted.


James Horace King: That is not a question of privilege.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As I said, Mr. Speaker, Canada is a deficit country in regard to farm implements, in that we have always imported far more than we exported and have required far more than we produced. That is just as true to-day as it was in earlier days, in spite of the fact that the production of farm machinery in Canada trebled between 1939 and the present time. In other words our capacity for manufacturing farm machinery is three times as great to-day as it was in 1939. The farm implement industry is operating to capacity and has been for several years, up to the limitation imposed by the recent steel strike. My hon. friend suggests that we could stop exporting entirely, and that other countries would still export to Canada.


Percy Ellis Wright: I did not say that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He certainly implied that. I suggest to him that farm machinery is just as short in the United States as it is in Canada, yet the United States is exporting to Canada. Why? Because throughout the war Canada and the United States worked with
Farm Implements

each other on. the basis of equality of sacrifice. That has been the principle on which we have dealt with the United States since the early days of the war. The principle was established at the time of the Hyde Park agreement and has been followed in recent years, I may say very much to the benefit of Canada. Only a few months ago the United States made a move to cut off the export of tractors to Canada; there was a terrific shortage of tractors in the United States. Canada is wholly dependent upon that country for tractors. We immediately went to Washington, raised the principle of equality of sacrifice, and succeeded in having our quota maintained. Could we have done that had we adopted the policy suggested by my hon. friend and kept everything we made in Canada for our own purposes, depriving our foreign customers of the Canadian implements upon which over the years, they have been taught to depend?


Percy Ellis Wright: How much did we get from the Argentine?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Canada has been a supplier of implements to the Argentine republic for a great many years. I was in that country between 1930 and 1934, and I noted then that Canadian implements had a very large share of that market at that time, as they have had ever since. I do not know that my hon. friend would suggest that we cut off such an historic market under present conditions.


Thomas Reid: Well, he did suggest that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Who has been the principal buyer of Canadian farm implements for export in recent years? I can tell my hon. friend that. The principal buyer has been UNRRA. Why has UNRRA been buying? So that it could help solve the food situation in the devastated countries. Why do we ration flour in Canada? Let me ask that. We do it so that we can send food to the devastated countries and help them avert starvation. Well, farm implements are the equivalent of food. All during the war we cut back many items of civilian production, but we did not cut back the production of farm implements; we expanded that production. Why? Because farm implements were implements of war. It was just as important to England during the battle of Britain to obtain farm implements from Canada as it was to obtain food itself, because farm implements meant food. We did maintain our exports of farm implements to the United Kingdom during the war years, and we expanded them as much as we could, in the 
meantime taking care of Canada's most urgent needs. We kept up that traffic during an acute shortage of shipping. Britain gave it the highest priority in shipping, and every effort was made to maintain those shipments as a matter of the highest importance to the people of both countries. We are exporting to the devastated countries to-day, though the proportions of those exports are not as great as in war years. We fully recognize the need to take care of the Canadian market; and let me say that I believe the needs of the Canadian market are satisfied to a higher degree in connection with farm implements than in connection with most other consumer items.
It is our policy to continue to fill those needs. That is why we are fighting the supply situation; and I may say we regard agricultural implements as having the highest priority in the division of available supplies. In the matter of pig iron, material that is in exceedingly short supply, we are robbing other industries in order to see that the agricultural implement industry is kept in full production. Throughout the war years the administrator of the wartime prices and trade board responsible for farm implements was fighting the battle of the implement industry in a very aggressive manner. It is because of his vigilance and because of the vigilance of this government at Washington that we have maintained our imports from that country; and the reason we have been well treated is that we have shared with the United States the burden of taking care of the agricultural implement requirements of the devastated countries. I sincerely hope the speech made by my hon. friend is not broadcast in Washington, because if it is, it may very well follow that the position concerning tractors may be reviewed in the light of comments made in this House of Commons.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, because of your ruling the motion moved by the hon. gentleman has had to be amended, and it now includes only two matters. It is claimed that the situation in the west with respect to the shortage of farm machinery is serious because of the large crop. There is no doubt about that. It is "in consequence of this that the present situation exists". The members of the C.C.F. and most Liberals have contended all along that the agricultural implement industry was a free trade industry. The protection which was 32 per cent when the present government came into office has been cut down to seven per cent.
Only the war saved the remains of that great industry in Ontario. The Massey-

Farm Implements
Harris company built up a large factory in Toronto under the system of protection. The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) has referred to this, and it seems to me that he is the only Liberal on the government side who wears the mantle and tie of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. He was not a free trader, but a protectionist, and the protection afforded by Sir Wilfrid in 1897 was the same as in 1896. As I say, the hon. gentleman seems to wear the mantle of Elijah-of Sir Wilfrid- and now it would seem the hon. gentleman himself is Elisha because he is the only Liberal on the government side who is ready to defend the principles of the national policy which built up this great agricultural implement industry. Elijah divided the waters of the Jordan, but the hon. gentleman is trying to unite the waters of the Ottawa.	.
Shortly after I came to the house I remember the council of agriculture coming down here in the early twenties with Mr. Drury, then premier of Ontario, and contending that protection was an unmitigated evil, that the manufacturers of farm machinery throughout the country were a lot of robbers and extortionists. They asked that the protection which was afforded should be destroyed. What has been the effect?
The war devastated the agricultural implement industry throughout the world. As I said before, the industry in Toronto engaged in war work and were thus able to keep open. Massey-Harris is established on King street west of Shaw street. This very large industry in conversion is now manufacturing many articles that are necessary and useful. In 1937 and 1938 I contended in this house that the government should give assistance to this industry which was in a serious condition. I also contended that large storage reservoir facilities be built up in England. In 1936, 1937 and 1938 I was the only member in this house who urged that storage reservoirs be established in the old country so that stocks of grain could be built up because I saw that war was surely coming. The British Medical Association said at a meeting in 1938 in London that this grain could be kept in good condition for ten years in such reservoirs.
You have to consider the cause and effect of the two situations set out in this motion. As I said, away back in the twenties the agricultural industry operated under a system of protection. Drastic reductions were made in the budgets of the twenties, and in the thirties the protection was down to seven per cent, as a result many of these industries were forced to the wall.
The grain growing industry was never a free trade industry. It should be the best
protected one for us. It was never a north and south industry but an east and west industry to Britain, France, Italy, and our old allies as well.
What has been the result since Mr. Drury and the council of agriculture came down here in 1923? During the war we saw hon. members to your left, sir, standing up in the house and urging nine, ten, eleven and twelve different forms of protection for the great grain growing industry. Some of them supported the middlemen and elevators and the Winnipeg grain exchanges which were fleecing the dirt farmer out of the profits he should have got from his crops. They were the people to blame for the conditions that then prevailed on the prairies. It. was not the man who sowed the crop, because he was a good man and true. Men of that type were a blessing to the country. You have to look at the cause and effect of the policies then put into force by hon. gentlemen to your left.
The hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) when he came here supported those free trade policies, and there were many others. The result was that the small protection enjoyed by this industry was cut down to seven per cent. Mr. Speaker, you come from western Ontario and you know that in the early days there were manufacturers who wanted to claim all the benefits of protection for themselves. In the twenties those manufacturers were the worst enemies protection had. Protection as properly applied in the days of the Conservative party, and in practice continued by Sir Wilfrid and Mr. Fielding and others, was not applied for the benefit of one class; it was applied for the benefit of the people. The application of protection in that way meant that we were able to maintain our own markets for our own products and for our own workmen. By this national policy of the Conservative government the great cities of this country were built up.
That policy has never been seriously interfered with as it relates to the agricultural implement industry'. The protection was cut down so low that two or three companies were driven to the wall. They could not pay their taxes and overhead charges on the seven per cent. What was the result of the policy of hon. members to your left? The market was left to the American manufacturers. McCormick's in Chicago were able to ship farm implements across the border and avoid taxes.
I have the deepest sympathy for the people of the prairie provinces, especially the grain growers, and all along I have supported their cause in the house. However, I fail to see where this is an emergency, because it has
Farm Implements

been referred to many times during this session. Instead of talking for days about the price of wheat, as is done each session, we might think more about the people of the mother country who were our steady and best customers for grain. I believe we should have given them 200,000 bushels of wheat and saved the mother country from having to put in bread rationing. That would have been a blessing because they were the pioneers and the best friends of the great grain growing industry, as were the people of France and the people of our old ally, Italy. I appreciate the sincerity of the mover of the motion and others to your left, but they are not following the policies they and all their predecessors used to follow when they were free traders. Now that the war is over I am afraid that without adequate protection this industry may have to close up as was demanded in 1923 when the council of agriculture came down here. We shall either have to have adequate protection for the industry or free trade in agricultural implements, and that is what we are heading for. The old Conservative party were absolutely right and always have been. They were the best friends the farmers on the prairies ever had-not the free traders who forget all about cause and effect. We need a policy that will preserve our own markets for our own products and our own work for our own workmen. It is the fallacies of hon. gentlemen to my left which are responsible for the decline in the agricultural implement industry. Some of the manufacturers themselves in the early days were the worst enemies that protection ever had, because they wanted to claim all the benefits of it for themselves and none for the consumer or at times for their workmen or for the country at large. There is a shortage now of agricultural implements, it must be admitted. but there is also a world shortage of suitable farm machinery, and transportation and strikes play an important part in that shortage. There is no doubt that with harvest coming on the situation is serious, but not because of all the reasons put forward by the hon. member for Melfort.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to detain the house more than a few moments, but I should like to put some actual figures on the record. I am really surprised at the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) presenting only one side of this picture. I think he should have considered the best interests of the farmers of Saskatchewan and of the rest of Canada before he undertook to speak as he did this morning.

This subject came up in our veterans affairs committee, where the question was raised about the exporting of farm implements. We went to the trouble to get the actual figures We already of course knew quite well that practically all our imports of the most vital farm implement we have-the tractor-are from the United States. We also know that there are people in the United States, just as there are in Canada, who talk in the same manner as the hon. member for Melfort did this morning, that they need their own tractors in the United States and therefore the government of the country should place an embargo on the export of American tractors and let other countries get along as best they can without them. But in the United States the attitude of give-and-take, of carrying on on a comradely basis, prevailed over this argument, and so they continued to export to us our fair share of tractors and other farm implements.
I ask any member representing a farm community in this house what would have happened to the farming industry in Canada if the United States had actually listened to arguments similar to those made this morning by the hon. member for Melfort and discontinued the export of their tractors? Can it be suggested for a single moment that if we took that attitude, if we stopped all shipments of farm machinery to the unfortunate peoples of Europe so that they could raise crops and feed their starving women and children-


An hon. MEMBER:: Boo-hoo.


Walter Adam Tucker: Someone may sneer at that. I do not want to name the member who did it, because I am sure that, on second thought he will be sorry for it. It ill behooves any hon. member to sneer because we are a country most blest by Providence, and if we took the selfish attitude indicated by that "boo" we would not be showing gratitude to divine Providence for the way in which Canada has been blest in a world torn by suffering and starvation. Is it to be suggested that if we did take that attitude towards the unfortunate peoples of Europe and refused to send the farm machinery we are sending to them through UNRRA we could still go to the United States and ask them to ship to us a fair share of their tractors? They would almost certainly say to us: You are not as badly off as the peoples of Europe, and if you are placing an embargo on the shipment of farm machinery to them and also to our farmers, we will hand out to you the same measure of justice that you are handing out to them and to us. The future organization of the world cannot be on the basis of going

Farm Implements
amongst one's own people and saying: "Why are we sending abroad this machinery and this food that we need at home?" and thus working up hatred and antagonism towards international cooperation, which is the only sound basis for world peace and cooperation.
Now I wish to put on Hansard the actual figures tabled in our veterans affairs committee on June 28, to indicate that if we stopped exporting farm machinery and had that same policy applied to us, not only would we lose on the most vital piece of farm machinery we need, the tractor, but we would lose on the total amount of farm machinery available to us. We cannot have it both ways. That was the old idea of the protectionists-that you could stop buying and go on selling abroad. Here are the figures.
In 1939 the gross selling value at the works of our production of farm implements and machinery was $16,000,000 odd. Our imports were $20,000,000; our exports and reexports $7,000,000. That meant an apparent consumption in 1939 of $29,000,000 worth of farm implements in this country, which was $13,000,000 worth more than we produced in 1939.
In 1945 we produced $46,400,000 worth of farm implements. We imported $27,300,000; we exported $20,200,000. Our apparent consumption was $53,500,000 worth, or $7,100,000 worth more of farm machinery consumed than we were able to manufacture in this country.
I would draw the attention of the house to the fact that in spite of the gloomy outlook of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), in 1945 we actually produced in Canada $46,400,000 worth of farm machinery, as against $16,000,000 worth in 1939. I would also point out that in 1945 while we imported $27,300,000 worth, we exported only $20,200,000 of farm implements, so we gained on the whole transaction approximately $7,000,000 worth of farm machinery, and that farm machinery was the most vital of all to our farmers on the western plains, tractors being a large item of it.
In 1946. from January to April, we imported $16,400,000 worth of farm implements, and exported $10,600,000 worth. In other words, in that period we imported three dollars' worth of farm machinery for every two dollars' worth that we exported.
The proposal of the hon. member would strike at our importations of machinery, including tractors, of which, as I have just said, we imported from January to April three dollars' worth for every two dollars' worth that we exported. It means that we would have $6,000,000 worth less of farm machinery if we did not export and import. I leave it to the
judgment of the house and of the country whether that would be in the best interests of the farmers of Canada.
We hear a great deal in Saskatchewan about these nefarious interests which are exporting in order to make a profit, that they do not care about the farmers' needs, and so on. It is perhaps a good thing that this question has been raised on the floor of the house, because it shows that on balance we have gained during the period from January to April of this year almost $6 million worth of machinery over what we would have had if we had not exported and imported.


Mr. McILRAITH:: Six million dollars is our total apparent consumption in 1932.


Walter Adam Tucker: Yes. For people to go around the country in order to stir up a feeling like this, making demands on their government which might have the most serious repercussions in their effect upon the farmers, and in particular for this to be done by any party or any member in this house, is, I think, very much out of place. However, I am glad that the matter was brought up on the floor of the house, because when it is said around the country many people do not think of the other side at all. They say, "Why are we exporting all this stuff?" They do not think that if we stopped exporting we would stop importing. That is true with regard to the very thing that hon. members have been speaking about-tractors. I venture to say that every one of them came from the United States.


An hon. MEMBER:: And combine engines.


Walter Adam Tucker: Perhaps combine engines too. Tractors, anyway. If the ultimate result of the hon. member's speech were what he appeared to wish it to be, these very people would have no tractors at all. It is quite true that a plant to manufacture tractors for cooperatives is being set up in Brantford, but the basis on which that implement industry which is to supply the cooperatives of Canada and the United States is to be built up is this. In times past it was found that owing to the comparatively smaller demand for tractors in Canada compared with the United States, tractors cost more to manufacture in Canada than in the United States. If we did not permit the free importation of tractors the farmer would be paying more for his tractor, because, owing to the smaller output it could not be made in Canada nearly as cheaply as in the United States. As a result of the policy of this government in taking the tariff off it is now possible for the implement industry to supply the cooperatives in the United States and the cooperatives to be set up in Canada,
Farm Implements

which will result in a very much larger output because it will supply the cooperatives in the United States. As a result, for the first time in many years it will be possible to have a successful tractor industry in Canada which because of the large output will be able to manufacture tractors as cheaply as factories in the United States. That arises, not from a policy of exclusion and interference with trade, but by virtue of the very policy we are following. The clear effect of my hon. friend's attack on the trade in farm implements, if carried to its ultimate conclusion, would be the destruction of the possibilities in the tractor industry of establishing a set-up to supply tractors in Canada and the United States.
So I say that on two counts the hon. member for Melfort was ill-advised in bringing this up. In the first place, his words will be read in Washington, and the very people who talk as he does in the United States will say, "There, on the floor of the Canadian House of Commons they say that they should place an embargo on farm implements; therefore we had better follow their policy and place an embargo on much-needed tractors"; and when trade is interfered with, the basis of the most hopeful developments in the matter of the supplying of farm implements to the farmer at or near cost, namely by having them built in a cooperative plant which is to supply the United States and Canada, would be cut away. I say that to get some temporary applause in the countiy by attacking a policy which has so much in the way of good, of hope for the future, and of fairness to humanity, is too high a price to pay for that sort of thing.


Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: I think the present situation may be looked upon as a logical outcome of the government's policy on foreign trade. They have always overemphasized the importance of the export trade at the cost and in some cases to the exclusion of the home market. Hon. members on the other side-the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) and the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe)-have emphasized the fact that we are getting a large amount of imports in the form of machinery from the United States. Well, first of all, that points to the absurdity of our exporting machinery when we have a chronic deficiency of machinery in this countiy and are having to import it.
The hon. member for Rosthern said that we have a moral obligation to the devastated areas of Europe which are short of machinery. Let me ask the hon. member for Rosthern, or any member of the government, what is the main shortage in Europe to-day? The answer is food. Therefore in considering the question of machinery you must consider
TMr. Tucker.]
what is the most efficient use which can be made of machinery to-day, and I think it can be proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that more bushels per machine can be produced in Canada than anywhere in Europe.
We in western Canada are suffering a great loss of production on account of the shortage of machinery. To-day in western Canada we are facing, I hope, a very large crop; the present situation looks good, and if that large crop comes we are going to lose millions of bushels of wheat because of the lack of machinery.
There is another thing: this chronic shortage of machinery is having an adverse effect on machinery prices. Old machinery is selling at higher figures than the list prices of new machinery.
In the discussion of loans to foreign countries we in this group pointed out that we were prepared to support these loans purely on one ground, and that was the moral obligation to make them, but that it was not to the advantage of Canada to finance exports of goods which were in short supply in this country; that these loans should be used mainly for the exporting of any goods which happened to be surplus. As I said, Europe is depending on us for tremendous quantities of food; therefore it is essential that our production be kept up at the maximum level, and that can be done only if our farmers have the machinery needed for that maximum production. Therefore I would urge upon the government the desirability of curtailing exports until that chronic deficiency has been made up.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to make a few observations on this motion. Coming from the quarter of the house from which it did, it seems a bit strange when one recalls the history of this session. The leader of the official opposition moved an amendment in this house that agricultural production in Canada was being hampered because of controls and other government policies, but if my memory serves me rightly we were not supported on that motion by the group to my immediate left. So I think they show a strange inconsistency.


Mr. ZAPLITNY:: More of us voted for it than members of your party.


James Arthur Ross: Not on the particular amendment I refer to, namely the throne speech amendment last March. But despite that fact I want to support the principle of the motion moved by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright). May I say, with respect to some of the resolutions for the settlement of our veterans, which is an all-

Farm Implements
important matter at this time, the greatest difficulty is the handicap arising from a lack of proper farm equipment, and the veteran's inability to obtain it.
I was interested in some of the figures put on Hansard by the last speaker on behalf of the government, the hon. member for Rosthem (Mr. Tucker). He said that some $53 million worth of farm implements were distributed in Canada during 1945. That is approximately the normal consumption of farm implements in Canada in pre-war years.


George James McIlraith: No-six millions.


James Arthur Ross: This motion referred to western Canada, and I was going to say that in western Canada alone the normal annual requirement in pre-war years was approximately $50 million worth of farm machinery.


George James McIlraith: That is the second highest in the history of Canada.


James Arthur Ross: I am not arguing the point. I say that the normal requirement by western farmers in pre-war years, as can be ascertained from the bureau of statistics, was approximately $50 million. I am speaking, of course, of agricultural implements. When war was declared in 1939, as admitted by everyone in Canada, agricultural price levels were most unfair, and as a result the farmers were unable to purchase the farm implements they required. There was consequently a backlog of $200 million worth of farm equipment which the farmers required and which they would have purchased had they the means of buying it. These are figures which cannot be disputed. We also realize that farm implement companies and other concerns of the kind do not produce equipment when there is no demand for it, but farmers go ahead producing. They have greater difficulties, therefore, than these other people have to face.
One of the ministers asked, what about export wheat along with the export of farm implements? One of our greatest difficulties to-day is that in the export of wheat the price is held down by the government and the commodity is not sold at the prevailing world market price, as farm implements, lumber and other manufactured goods are sold.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Does the hon. member advocate a wide open market for wheat?


James Arthur Ross: On export? I have always done so, yes, and I do to-dav, so far as the export of wheat is concerned. I certainly do.


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: Including
England?


James Arthur Ross: Any country. Much is made of this great contribution of Canada to Britain, and I do not object to it, but I do object to the producer making the contribution and not the taxpayer of Canada as a whole.


Douglas Charles Abbott: You object to the four-year contract for wheat?


James Arthur Ross: I certainly do, on the present basis, and you will hear more about it before the session is over-under the present set-up. In my opinion the crux of this situation is to be found in a statement made by Donald Gordon the other day before a committee of this house, wherein he intimated that it was the duty of many enterprises and business concerns in the country to carry on for the national welfare, whether they made a profit on the goods they sold in Canada to-day or not. He went further and said that certain companies, essential to the country, were able to operate only by virtue of the fact that they made a profit on the goods they exported. I do not know what that means, except that it is all bound up in the present government control system. At any rate that is the statement of Donald Gordon, who is responsible for the price ceilings. He was then talking about the production of lumber for houses and other requirements, and he said that you could not procure lumber at present prices in Canada. The same applies to farm implements.
Figures were put on Hansard by the member for Melfort showing that there was $16 million of farm implements exported out of a production of $46 million in this country. That bears out the philosophy of Donald Gordon under the present price control system. I do not know how far you can carry that, but I do say that there is a decided shortage of implements in Canada at the present time.


Douglas Charles Abbott: A shortage of other things too.


James Arthur Ross: Certainly there is, and it is all due to the policy of the government of the day.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Nonsense; it is due to the war.


James Arthur Ross: No such thing; I will be fair enough to say-'


Douglas Charles Abbott: You are burying your head in the sand.


James Arthur Ross: I hope I am not burying my head in the sand any more than the Acting Minister of Finance has done in the past few days.
Farm Implements


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is a snappy come-back.


An hon. MEMBER:: There aren't any heads there to buiy.


James Arthur Ross: There is something there.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Somebody else had to think of that one for you.


James Arthur Ross: At any rate, we do not make little jests and write them out and pass them back and forth and put them in our desks, as I have seen the Acting Minister of Finance doing in the discussions in the house.


Douglas Charles Abbott: What's that?


James Arthur Ross: The member for Mel-fort pointed out that harvesting would be in full operation in a month's time, and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that in southwestern Manitoba it is progressing to-day. According to a letter I received from home, my men are cutting fall rye, and barley is ready to cut. I am sure the government whip will say that harvesting is taking place on his farm in central Manitoba, and so on through the west. This farm machinery shortage is a serious situation and something that is not new. It has been discussed in past sessions and on several occasions during this session.
Something has been said about free trade. There is no tariff on implements now, as I understand it, and despite that fact, once more, owing to the government's control system, we find that a power binder manufactured in Canada costs over $100 more than an international binder from across the line. There is a difference of more than $100 in the purchase price of the two binders, and that again by virtue of the controls that are operated by the present government.
Without taking up more of the time of the house, I wish to register my objection to the present shortage of farm equipment in Canada, which is the result of the present policies of the government. I hope they will see their way clear to changing these policies in the future, because, as I pointed out before, this and other policies of the government are decidedly hampering the production of essential foodstuffs, which are needed here and in Europe, as has been pointed out by hon. members on the other side of the house as well as on this side.


Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton):: As seconder of the motion I merely wish to straighten out some statements made with regard to the mover (Mr. Wright). The hon. member moved the adjournment of the house to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the serious situation in the west

with respect to the shortage of suitable farm machinery for the harvesting of the present large crop. The member for Melfort should be the last one to be accused of wishing to cut off the importation of tractors. He would like to see more farm machinery imported, because we have not sufficient manufacturing facilities in Canada to-day to meet the requirements.


Walter Adam Tucker: Will the hon. member permit a question? Can he expect, if an embargo is placed on exports, that other countries will continue shipping such things to Canada?


George Hugh Castleden: The hon. member did not suggest that.


Walter Adam Tucker: Yes, he did.


Douglas Charles Abbott: What did he suggest?


George Hugh Castleden: He was referring to the policy of the government and what they had done with regard to exports. The hon. gentleman has had his little say and has presented his case; I wish to make my speech now.
To-day we have one of the largest crops that we have ever seen, east and west. Western Canada went through ten years of depression prior to the war, and all machinery was worn out. The farmers were unable to get new machinery, and they tried to keep what they had in a state of repair. The prices of repair parts have gone up until the farmers are in desperate straits, and now that a bumper crop is expected in some areas where there has not been a crop in years, the farmer does not know how he will manage to take the crop out. This is an emergency situation, and it is the situation that has given rise to this resolution.
We think that machinery should be sent to UNRRA and to other places in order to promote production. It is a matter of meeting the immediate need, and the question is whether you will take tractors and combines and ship them to Greece or Belgium or southern countries where they will not have a harvest for another six months, or whether you will use the equipment in Canada to-day. That is the point. If you ask the people of those countries whom UNRRA is feeding whether they would take a carload of farm machinery, or wheat from western Canada, I have no doubt they would reply at once: Send us the wheat now and the machinery lalter, because we need the food. Reports from UNRRA depict a terrific situation; for they indicate that death from starvation can hardly be averted among the thousands of people who need foodstuffs. In a situation such as this, can we see food in western Canada

Farm Implements
lying in the fields, freezing, rotting, rusting, spoiling in the stooks for lack of machinery?
To me that is the situation. Canada's capacity to produce that food in the next few weeks is the important thing. Take all the machinery we can get hold of to-day and ship it out to that western country. We have another year to carry on our production. It will be of no use to bring in that policy and ship out the machinery in two months' time. It will be too late. That is all we want. We want something done immediately. We are not asking that exports to other countries be stopped. We understand these things have to go on, but we do say that there is an immediate situation which has to be met. We have to meet it now.
People wonder why this shortage continues. They do not understand it. I believe the debate will do something toward enlightening the people as to Canada's productive capacity. Whenever there is a great shortage the pressure for producing is greater and the prices are apt to go up. The wartime prices and trade board does not always keep prices under control. Second-hand tractors were sold this spring in western Canada for $600 or $700 above the price of a new tractor. Why were these prices not controlled? Farmers would pay double the price for a binder to-day if they could get hold of it. We must prevent the building up of a black market; that kind of thing should not be permitted.
What we should like to see done with respect to this particular motion is that the government take immediate cognizance of the fact that there might be a spoilage and a wastage of food which is right there, practically in the bag, at a time when the world is starving. Let the government take hold of the supply of all the machinery that is available in the country and all that it can get from anywhere * else, and put it into that western country to relieve the immediate situation which is facing the people there. This would help to save the food which could be sent abroad to feed a starving world. The whole matter of stepping up the production in the farm implement business to meet these needs-it is too late for this 37ear-should be taken well in hand. The government should make a complete survey of the farm machinery productive capacity of Canada, with a view to imDroving conditions in our own country if the imports cannot be obtained from other countries.


Mr. R. W. MAYHEW (Victoria. B.C.):: I have no intention of delaying the house at any length on this matter, because it has been fully discussed and probably will bring about some improvement. I am sure that the statement which was made by the
Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) and also the statement made by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) will clear up the situation considerably. However,
I do wish to clear up one matter, if I can. Close to eleven o'clock last night the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) came over to me and was kind enough to say that he intended to bring up this matter in the house. He did not know just when it would be done. He again read the answers which I gave him some time ago on this subject. At that time I suggested to him that there would be an opportunity to bring up the matter when we were going into supply, and that it could be done satisfactorily then; therefore I was surprised when the question was raised to-day.
This subject is not one in which the Department of Finance alone is interested or should take the sole responsibility. It affects three other departments. The question whether we should or should not export farm machinery is one of government policy.
I think the present policy is a good one, and the only one that Canada can adopt. So far as our trading with the United States is concerned, if we had not been willing to trade in many articles with that country I do not know what would have happened to us. We have been in short supply in steel ever since the beginning of the war. At all times they were ready to share their steel with us, particularly when we were in a much more serious position than we are at the present time. Had we not been willing to adopt that trade policy, the good neighbour policy, the chances are there would have been considerably less farm machinery than we have been getting.
From the point of view of good business I think it should be the policy of Canada to look after our trade abroad. It probably will not be long before these very same people will be crying for more work for our men. If we close the door to-day on machinery for export, or anything else that we can export, they will be the first to complain that work is not available. In my opinion Canada should endeavour to hold on to what export trade she has at present. I shall give the house an illustration. Quite recently an advertisement appeared in our home paper. It was placed there by the Hudson's Bay company. What were they advertising in Victoria? Fancy biscuits manufactured in England. England wanted to continue to hold that market. Some may ask why we are sending food to Britain and they are sending food back to us. There was probably not more than an ounce of food value in those biscuits, but there was a large monetary
Farm Implements

value in them. England was going to hold her trade in the future. I think it was good policy for her to do that. It may not have been good policy for the Hudson's Bay people to put it on the front page of the paper where it would be read by people who do not think and do not understand the ramifications of this kind of business. I-think England was doing the right thing, and we are doing the right thing in this regard.
So far as farm machinery is concerned I think the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) made the situation clear. In only one year since 1931 have Canada's exports been more than her imports. That year was 1933. In every other year we have been debtors so far as farm machinery is concerned. I have not the figures with me, but I want to say something about our own consumption or delivery of goods to the farmers. I have not the figures because when I asked the question over the telephone I was told that they could not give it by provinces; they did say however, that in the first four months the delivery of farm machinery to the farmers of Canada was twenty per cent more than it was in the other years. Up to date we have already delivered to our own people some $10,600,000 worth of farm machinery. Last year our requirements were $53,000,000 in all. Therefore we are well ahead, and if we continue with our production this year the way we did last year we shall produce in the neighbourhood of $60,000,000 worth of farm machinery.
As soon as I got around to the questions this morning I asked the department to prepare a comprehensive statement which I might be able to give to the house on this subject, and I shall do so on a later occasion. That is all I wish to say at this time.


Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to hold up the business of the house, but I do want to make a few references to the trend this debate has taken. The hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) I think has rendered a public service in introducing this resolution, which is to the effect that there is an emergency in the west in the matter of the supplies of farm implements required for the harvesting of this year's crop.
Much has been said on the question of foreign trade. Personally I cannot see where that question enters into this discussion at all. We have in western Canada to-day an emergent situation which demands action now, not consideration by the government of questions of trade. In the few moments at my disposal I have taken the trouble to get some statistics

which indicate that the government has been negligent in discharging its responsibility in the matter of providing for reapers, reaper-threshers, combines and the like, necessary for the harvesting of our crop. This is not a new problem. The government was aware last April of the condition and of the necessity of increasing the supply of farm machinery this year, because that was the reason given for the increase in price. The 12% per cent increase was to assure the production of farm implements in order to meet the increasing demand of this country. One of the major considerations then before the Department of Agriculture, and I believe the Department of Trade and Commerce as well, was the necessity of making available the necessary farm machinery to replace that which had become obsolete during the war but which had continued to be used because no replacements were available.
What has the government done? It realized that under normal conditions a large crop was to be harvested this year. It has known that for a period of months, but it strikes me as very strange that in June alone, at a time when the government must have fully realized the situation, exports of harvesters, binders, reaper-threshers and the like from this country were materially greater than they were a year ago. In the period from January to November,
1945,	Canada exported 9,729 harvesters and binders. In the six months ended June 30,
1946,	our exports totalled 8,083, or almost as many in six months as had been exported in eleven months in 1945. Take reaper-threshers; to-day in the western provinces particularly agriculture is mechanized. Without combines, labour being in short supply as it is to-day, our crops will not be marketed. What is the record'? From January to November, 1945, the number of combines exported from this country was 1,888. For the six months ended June 30, 1946, the exports totalled 2,616. I could go through the list of threshing machine separators and so on, showing material increases at a time when the government must have realized-and it is not so much averse to exercising certain types of controls-what the condition was going to be. Take the month of June as an example. During that month, with the great crop coming along in western Canada, which must have been known to the government, Canada exported 473 combines, 1,599 reapers and 1,073 mowing machines, harvesters and binders. One can sometimes excuse the necessity for trade, but at the moment the greater necessity is the harvesting and preservation of that food in this country.

Farm Implements


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Do you think you can just go out and pick up trade when you want it? You have to give some consideration to these matters.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Speaker, that very question answers itself; nor can one pick up food once it is destroyed over hundreds or thousands of acres. The government asked for production, and it was its responsibility to make available to the farmers the necessary machinery and parts. The government does not discharge that responsibility by flippant remarks such as have been made here this morning by certain ministers of the crown. My hon. friend points-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not pointing at my hon. friend; it was just an aside concerning the Siamese twins sitting in front of him.


John George Diefenbaker: It is just a coincidence that the hon. gentleman who pointed was one of those who this morning made those flippant remarks concerning an emergency situation which demands not the display of partisanship but cooperation by all of us. What minister has risen and given the farmers any assurance that their call will be answered?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: What better trade could we be doing, as a matter of preserving food, than having our machinery over in the United States harvesting their crops, with the promise that their machinery is going to come back to help us harvest ours? Is that not reciprocity of the best kind?


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Speaker, the government does not meet the situation with alibis like that. The answer the government should give at this time is an assurance that this situation is going to be met. That is all that is asked; the promise, not the expectation or the hope, that it is going to be met. I do not know whether my hon. friends on the other side of the house are out of touch with the electors, but during the last few days I have received numbers of letters from my own constituency pointing out the difficulty. Those who have written are not very hopeful. Some are veterans who have found it impossible to get any machinery in order to carry on their farming operations without first binding themselves by a loan under the Veterans Land Act. There are veterans all over Saskatchewan who have asked for a priority for machinery but have been denied that priority, and the reason given has not been a denial of their need but the fact that under the regulations now in effect they cannot have priorities unless they bind themselves under loans.


Mr. MARTIN:: Let us forget politics.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, my hon. friend says, "Let us forget politics."


Douglas Charles Abbott: Some people can't.


John George Diefenbaker: No; there is the voice of experience echoing my hon. friend the Secretary of State (Mr. Martin). Two better examples could not have spoken at one time.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I wonder if my hon. friend would withdraw the resolution now, so that we could get ahead with the business of the house at three o'clock.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I wish to take part in the debate, Mr. Speaker.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, I would not be holding up this matter any longer except that only one hon. member from Manitoba has spoken. I think it should be understood that this question affects Manitoba as much as any other province in Canada.
I was a little surprised at the attitude taken by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) in his reply to the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright). Instead of showing some appreciation for the fact that the hon. member for Melfort had taken the trouble to bring this serious matter to the attention of the government, the hon. member for Rosthern attempted to scold him. I do not think that is what this house expected. I realize that the government cannot be conversant with everything that develops throughout the country, and there are many things which possibly slip by unnoticed. It may be that they were not aware of the serious shortage of farm implements on the prairies, and the hon. member for Melfort has performed a public service for all the farmers of Canada by bringing this matter up for discussion to-day.
I think he made it abundantly clear that the only reason he was bringing it up at this time was its urgent importance. In some parts of the prairies harvesting has already begun, while in most other parts harvesting will begin in the next few weeks. There is a definite shortage of implements, and I think the government should have taken a more cooperative attitude than it appeared to take to-day.
A great deal has been said about the export of implements and the possible effects of preventing exports to other countries. So far as I am concerned I would be the last to say that we should place an embargo against the
Farm Implements

export of any materials to countries which require them, provided that we can spare them. To the extent that we can spare farm implements or anything else, we should be prepared to export them to countries which need them. But we are faced with an immediate shortage of implements in this country just before the harvest season begins.
It should be understood that if we export reapers and harvesters to the United States or to European countries they will not arrive there in time for use in harvesting. For the most part harvesting in the United States is either completed or well advanced, and the same may be said of many European countries. Anything we might ship now would not reach those countries in time to help with their harvesting. This should be clearly understood. It is not a question of depriving other countries of harvesting equipment which they might be able to use; it is a matter of making available to the farmers of western Canada, and all Canada, implements which have been manufactured and which are lying in pools, perhaps consigned to other countries but not yet shipped. I do not think it is unreasonable for members of this group or anyone else to request the government to give immediate consideration to releasing some of these implements which if shipped to other countries will not turn a wheel for a whole year while we are suffering a shortage in this country.


Thomas Reid: How much wheat does the hon. member think will not be harvested because of a lack of machinery?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I do not know, but if one bushel of wheat is likely to be wasted because of a shortage of implements which are lying around and not being used, we should try to see that it is not wasted.
I think the argument about exports and imports was beside the point. I would not mind if we were to have a full dress discussion on imports and exports, because I am sure hon. members on all sides could contribute something to it. But I would point out that there seems to be a metamorphosis occurring in the thinking of hon. members on the Liberal side and hon. friends to my right in the matter of exports and imports. It was not so long ago that hon. members who support the government used to tell this house and the country that we must export in order to have a favourable balance of trade. That was their story then, but to-day they say we must export in order that we may have imports in exchange. I congratulate them upon that changed attitude; I believe it is far more sound, f think it was the present leader of the

opposition (Mr. Bracken) who not very long ago coined the phrase that we must export or die. I may be wrong in crediting that phrase to him, but I think that is where it came from.


John George Diefenbaker: What about the socialists?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: To-day we heard the
hon. member who has just interrupted me tell us that if we export we shall die. It is a little different type of story that we heard to-day.


John George Diefenbaker: That statement was never made at any time, and the hon. member knows better.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Hon. members on all sides are beginning to realize that we export in order that we may get goods in exchange, not to bring about a mythical balance of trade, which was the argument advanced before. Bringing in the argument of exports and imports at this time seemed to me to be getting a little away from the subject. I believe all the hon. member for Melfort wanted to do, and he presented his case ably, was to rivet the attention of the government on the shortage of implements in the west and throughout Canada generally, so that in the next twenty-four hours they might do something to supply implements which are already available but are being held or consigned to other countries. I do not think that is unreasonable.
The argument that people in the United States might feel offended if we refused to give them implements which normally might go there is not a very good one. I have been in the United States several times and I have spoken with farmers and others. I found these people most reasonable. I do not think they would object to the Canadian people supplying their own farmers with implements when there is a great need for them rather than ship them across the border. I believe they understand our situation, and I submit we are underestimating the friendliness and understanding of the people of the United States when we say that they would feel offended or would take some action in reprisal. I do not think that is correct.
It is not because of politics that we bring this matter to the attention of the house. I have in my hand a letter addressed to the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Probe) by the Saskatchewan associated boards of trade. Most of the members of this association are not farmers, but they recognize the shortage of certain types of implements. They say:

Farm Implements
There is much concern in Saskatchewan and I presume on the prairies generally, that there will not be sufficient vehicles to transport the current crop from the farms to the rail head, in order to expedite its delivery to the peoples who are so much in need of it.
A little further down they make the following recommendation:
The Saskatchewan associated boards of trade respectfully urge that of the available supply, increases lie made in the ordinary current allotment of commercial vehicles, or that quotas for winter months be diverted to fall delivery in time for the crop season.
It is evident that the associated boards of trade of Saskatchewan are aware of the impending shortage for this harvest. In all fairness the government should not take this merely as something in respect to which we are criticizing them, but as something that we have brought to their attention because we feel it is necessary that they take immediate action. I hope that is the spirit in which they will take it eventually.
Before I resume my seat 1 should like to put the record straight in connection with what the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) said earlier to-day. I am sure the hon. member did not wish to be unfair when he said that the members of this group failed to support his leader in the amendment he moved deploring the policies of the government which resulted in holding back production. But possibly he did not check the record. The vote on that amendment was taken on May 24, and it shows that the shoe was on the other foot. I have the record of the vote before me as contained on page 1874 of Hansard of May 24, 1946. If my hon. friend will refer to that he will see that of the members in the house at that time only nine Progressive Conservative members voted for the amendment of their leader.


James Arthur Ross: I referred to the amendment to the address and to the amendment on the budget as well. We expressed the same criticism in all three amendments.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I am bound to accept the hon. member's explanation, but he definitely said that when the leader of the opposition moved his amendment-


James Arthur Ross: To the address in reply to the throne speech.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: -to the effect that government policies were interfering with full production, it did not receive the support of this group. I am referring to the amendment practically in those very words. I shall not' read it, because that would be out of order.


James Arthur Ross: The amendment to paragraph 3 of the address in reply to the speech from the throne is what I was referring to.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The record speaks for itself. It shows that on May 24 only nine Progressive Conservative members voted to support the leader of the opposition.


Mr. GREEN:: Be fair. How many were paired?


James Arthur Ross: Exactly. There were many times nine members of this party paired at the time and present in the house.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Only nine of the Progressive Conservative members present voted for their amendment. I think that is correct. Nobody objects to that.


Howard Charles Green: State how many were paired.


James Arthur Ross: Give the whole story.


James Horace King: Order. When an hon. member has the floor he should not be interrupted without his permission.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do not mind questions, or even interruptions if they come one at a time so that I can sort them out. The hon. member for Vancouver South asked how many members of his party were paired. I am not prepared to say at the moment, but it is on the record.


Howard Charles Green: That upsets your whole argument.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: We will start the whole story once again from "once upon a time." Nine members of the Progressive Conservative party voted for the amendment of their leader, and the rest were either paired or absent from the house.


Mr. MacNICOL:: The ones who were paired could not be absent.


Mr. TUSTIN:: Would it not be fair to say that 47 members of the Progressive Conservative party were present?


James Arthur Ross: That is all on Hansard.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: All I was attempting to do was to set the record straight.


Mr. STIRLING:: Set it straight, then.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: But if my hon. friends do not wish me to do that, I shall go no further.


Mr. MERRITT:: Is the motion to adjourn the house to discuss a shortage of farm machinery in western Canada, or to discuss division lists?


James Arthur Ross: If the hon. member for Dauphin will look at page 1874 of Hansard he will find the whole story there.
Farm Implements


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I have been discussing this shortage of farm implements; and I referred to how the Progressive Conservative members voted for their leader's amendment, because the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) had said that the members of this group had not supported them on that particular amendment. I thought it was my duty to set the record straight.


James Angus MacKinnon: You certainly have.


Grote Stirling: He has not.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The Progressive Conservative amendment was simply a want of confidence motion, and the members of the Progressive Conservative party should have been here to support their leader's motion.


James Horace King: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I must remind him that the motion before the house is for adjournment to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, 'the serious situation in western Canada with respect to shortage of suitable farm machinery. I would ask that the hon. member's remarks be relevant to the motion before the house.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I shall be glad to comply with your ruling, Mr. Speaker. We in this group are not objecting to exports from Canada of farm implements or anything else that we can spare, but we do say that if the export of farm implements at this time is in such volume that it may, and it is quite evident that it may, result in a wastage of food in Canada, it might be better for the government to itake cognizance of that and take immediate action to make available to our farmers the implements which are necessary to gather in an abundant crop.


Mr. J. A. CHARLTON (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words in support of the motion of the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright). I do not want it to be thought that the western part of Canada is the only part of this country that is short of implements. Instead of the Shortage being merely a western problem, it is a national catastrophe. It has been brought about by the shortsighted policy of the government in granting export licences for such a large percentage of our farm implements. True, we want an export market, but surely we do not want it at the disadvantage of our own Canadian producers, especially in view' of the great scarcity of farm labour this year. Even though some people may not realize it, crops that are ready to harvest will not wait. If I may be pardoned a personal reference, I have had a 15-run fertilizer hoe drill on order for three years, and up to this spring it was not available. I had to get a disc drill to take its place; otherwise I would have had no drill at all.
r.Mr. J. A. Ross.]
Here is another special case. A man had a tractor ordered for two years, and he had already bought some of the implements to go with that tractor. Being assured that the tractor would be available in 1946, he sold his last team of horses last fall. He has not received the tractor, and only for his good fortune in being able to borrow one from a neighbour was he able to save half a canning factory pea crop. I can cite dozens of other cases in my own community where people have been working at a great disadvantage on account of the shortage of agricultural implements.
We are told that the shortage is caused by strikes, shortages of materials and so an, but we find on investigation, that a little more than $14,000,000 worth of implements were exported from this country in the first six months of 1946. The present situation is not the result of shortages. It is the result of the shortsighted policy of this government in allowing that volume of implements to be exported when we are in terrible need of them right here at home. W'hy is this so? The reason is obvious when, you compare the prices of these implements in Canada with the prices procured for them in various foreign countries. I say to the government that even at this late date it may still save part of the crop in western Canada and eastern Canada by allowing some of these implements destined for export to be retained to meet the domestic demand.
Mr. F. W. TOWNLEY-SMITH (North Battleford): Mr. Speaker, the motion calls attention to the urgency of the need of farm machinery in order to take off this year's crop. The discussion has wandered all over the well-known half acre. The amazing thing to me is that there should be any argument or debate about this at all. It is a condition which could have been and should have been anticipated and taken care of by the government, but this was not done.
To come right back to the actual matter. Does anyone argue about the importance of food? I do not think so. Does anyone argue that the western crop is not heavy? I do not think so. Does anyone argue that it is not within a few days of being harvested? Again I do not think so. Does anyone argue that in the west machines are not badly worn and badly in need of replacement? No argument has been made about these matters. That is really the subject matter of the motion-the need of more machinery, of new machinery. Instead of that, we get into an abstract discussion or debate on our export trade, and even at that we discuss principally exports into the United States. The statement has been made to-day that some seventy-one countries

Questions
were receiving Canadian machinery, that exports were being made to all those countries. Well, what about the other sixty-nine, if we are just discussing exports into the United States and to those countries which have been devastated by war? The need for these machines is undoubtedly very great. The fact that the crop is heavy simply aggravates the situation, because a machine which is capable of taking care of a farm crop of ordinary, normal proportions is not able to cut a crop which is extraordinarily heavy; and I fear that as soon as harvesting operations begin there will be great distress among the farmers who are attempting to use worn-out machines.
My suggestion is that, since the situation in the United States is practically cared for now-at the end of July and beginning of August all arrangements for their harvest have been made, they have the machines, and if they have not got them they have managed in some way without them-the urgency which you, Mr. Speaker, are allowing us to discuss is in our own country, and for the time being, anyway, the great concentration should be on our own particular problem, for which purpose we should stop exports for the present and see to it that the west is supplied with the machines which, I believe, are necessary in order to take off this most important crop.


Percy Ellis Wright: In rising to withdraw my motion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank you very much for having given the house the opportunity of discussing this matter. That was my sole object in bringing it up now-that the urgency of this matter should be brought to the attention of the house and of the country. I assure you that I do not wish to see the poor people of Europe described by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) starve; rather I was trying to point out the way in which we could secure more food for them. Nor was I endeavouring to antagonize our good friends to the south, as suggested by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe). I was merely trying to draw attention to the urgency of the matter.
Motion (Mr. Wright) withdrawn. QUESTIONS
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-FREIGHT RATES

Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	Has the Canadian National Railways made an application to seek upwards of a 25 per cent increase in freight rates?
2.	If so, is it necessary to have approval from (a) the transport commission; (b) from the wartime prices and trade board?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: The board of transport commissioners advise as follows;

1.	No application has been made to the board by the Canadian National Railways to increase domestic freight rates between points in Canada.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT-SAM CARR

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	When was Sam Carr (also known as Kogan), mentioned in the report of the royal commission on espionage, first granted naturalization in Canada?
2.	(a) Was this certificate afterwards revoked; (b) if so, when, and for what reasons?
3.	(a) Did Sam Carr thereafter make an application for naturalization; (b) if so, when; (c) who furnished him with letters of reference as to his good character; (d) in addition to these letters did any other person write letters of recommendation? If so, who?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In tabling this information I also wish to table reply to the same question put to me some time ago by the hon. member for Yegreville.
Mr. SPEAKER; Answered.



MEXICO TRAMWAYS COMPANY

Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	Have any representations been made by the Canadian government to the Mexican government on the subject of the Mexico Tramways Company?
2.	If so, what is the nature of these representations?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: 1 and 2. The Canadian embassy has discussed with the Mexican authorities the difficulties being experienced by the Mexico Tramways company. The embassy has not, however, proposed or advocated any specific solution for the problem, although it has been indicated that the Canadian government assumes that just and reasonable consideration will be given to the Canadian interests concerned.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD

Mr. FRASER:: .1. How many employees of the National Film Board are Canadian citizens?
2. Are there any employees of the National Film Board who are not British subjects? If so, how many?


Mr. McCANN:: 1.	Of the 726 persons employed by the national film board, 710 are Canadian citizens.
2.	Yes. There are nine, employed as follows:
Ottawa-1	Motion picture cameraman
(United States citizen); 1 stills photographer,
Questions

1 motion picture producer and 1 production assistant (United States citizens) who served overseas with the Canadian armed forces.
United States-1 distribution officer (Chicago) ; 1 stenographer (Chicago); It office boy (New York).
Mexico-1 Spanish-speaking secretary; 1 Spanish-speaking messenger.



HIGH COMMISSIONER TO EIRE

Mr. GRAYDON:: Has the government appointed a high commissioner to Eire to succeed the late Merchant Mahoney, C.B.E.?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The government has not yet appointed a new high commissioner to Ireland to succeed Mr. Mahoney.



PASSENGER COMMUTATION RATES-TORONTO

Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	From what railway stations are passenger commutation rates to Toronto in effect?
2.	What are the mileages from Toronto and the commutation rates in the case of each of such stations?


Lionel Chevrier: 1 and 2. The board of transport commissioners advise as follows:
Canadian National	Railways	40-trip	10-trip	20-trip	scholar	50-tripBetween Toronto and	Miles	tickets	tickets	tickets	ticketsCedarhurst 	
61-9	$15 50	$ -	$ -	$ -
16-1	4 00	5 50	3 00	6 80Danforth 	
5-3	1 50	2 05	3 00	3 75Downsview 	2 00	2 75	3 00	3 75Dixie Road 	
10-2	2 50	3 45	3 00	4 25Lakeview 	
11-1	2 75	3 80	3 00	4 65Lefroy 	
51 - S	13 00	-	-	-Long Branch 	
8-8	2 25	3 10	3 00	3 80Lome Park 	
15-0	3 75	5 15	3 00	6 35Maple Beach 	
59-9	15 00	-	-	-Mimico 	
6-8	1 75	2 40	3 00	3 75Oakville 	
21-4	5 50	7 60	3 75	9 35Oriole 	
11-2	3 00	-	-	-Parkdale 	
2-4	75	1 50	3 00	3 75Port Bolster 	
57-9	14 75	-	-	-Port Credit 	
12-8	3 25	4 50	3 00	5 50Port Union 	
16-3	4 25	5 85	3 00	7 20Riverdale 	
2-2	75	1 50	3 00	3 75St. Clair Avenue 	
5-2	1 50	2 05	3 00	3 75Scarboro 	
8-9	2 25	3 10	3 00	3 80Sunnyside 	
3-5	1 00	1 50	3 00	3 75Weston 	
8-6	2 25	3 10	3 00	3 80West Toronto 	
5-0	1 25	1 70	3 00	3 75Canadian Pacific Railway	Don 	50	1 00	2 00	2 50West Toronto 	
4-5	1 25	1 70	3 00	3 75Weston 	
8-3	2 25	3 10	3 00	3 80Lambton 	
6-4	1 75	2 40	3 00	3 75Islington 	
8-7	2 25	3 10	3 00	3 80Summerville 	
10-9	2 75	3 80	3 00	4 65Dixie 	
12-6	3 25	4 50	3 00	5 50Cooksville 	
14-2	3 75	5 15	3 00	6 35Erindale 	
17-3	4 50	6 20	3 05	7 65

Questions



POST OFFICES IN ROYAL CONSTITUENCY

Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	What was the revenue for the fiscal years ending March 31, 1943, 1944 and 1945 of the following post offices in the constituency of Royal; Chipman, Gagetown, Norton and Rothesay?
2.	How large a revenue is required before recommendations are made for the construction of a post office building in incorporated or other
villages?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: 1.	1943	1944	1945Chipman, N.B.	$6,057.47	$7,625.88	$8,163.92Gagetown, N.B.	2,276.90	2,967.19	3,199.40Norton, N.B.	3,425.37	4,586.41	4,896.92Rothesay, N.B.	5,238.48	6,174.73	7,270.762.	It is the present general policy of the Post Office Department to recommend to the Department of Public Works the construction of public buildings for post office purposes only when the postal revenue for the previous fiscal year is over $10,000 and where it is reasonably certain that the revenue will be maintained at that figure.
NATIONAL FILM BOARD-32mm. MACHINES


Mr. FRASER:: 1.	Did the National Film Board buy two 32 mm. machines in 1944?
2.	If so. from what firm, or individual, did they buy these machines?
3.	Were these machines new or used?
4.	Was part of the National Film Board shut down for part of the summer of 1944 while these two machines were being set up?
5.	During the time that these two machines were being installed, what contracts, if any, were given to outside firms?
6.	What footage did each contract cover?
7.	With what firms were contracts made?
8.	What was contract price in each case?


Mr. McCANN:: 1.	No. One 35mm. positive developing machine was purchased in 1943. Initial payment was made in 1942 and final payment in 1943. The existing negative developing machine was rebuilt.
2.	The 35mm. positive developing machine was purchased from General Pattern and Model Co., East 140th St. and Walton Ave., New York City.
3.	The machine was new and built according to required specifications.
4.	There was no shut down in the laboratory in 1944 but the laboratory was partially closed from August 15, 1943 until December 7, 1943. The installation of the new machine gave an opportunity for t'he redesigning of the circulating system, the centralization of the chemical mixing and the installation of a process control room. In general the laboratory was modernized.
5.	No contracts for processing of footage were given to outside firms. Purchase orders were placed as required.
6.	Purchase orders sent out by the laboratory totalled 1,197,661 feet at Associated Screen News, Montreal and 85,292 feet at Film Laboratories of Canada, Toronto.
7.	Orders were placed with Associated Screen News in Montreal and Film Laboratories of Canada in Toronto.
8.	Purchase price in each case was the standard commercial rate offered by these companies: 16 mm. B. & W. composite, 2^c per ft.; 35 mm. B. & W. composite-1st print, 4c per ft.; 35 mm. B. & W. composite release, 2|c per ft.; 35 mm. B. & W. from negative, 4c per ft.; 35 mm. duplicating positive, 5c per ft.; 35 mm. duplicating negative from lavender, 6c per ft.; 35 mm. lavender, 4c per ft.; 35 mm. fine grain duplicating negative, 6c per ft.; 35 mm. developing duplicating negative, ljc per ft:; 35 mm. developing sound track, lie per



NATIONAL FILM BOARD-TAXICAB ACCOUNTS

Mr. FRASER:: 1.	Did the National Film Board pay taxicab accounts for Mr. Grierson or Mr. Legg during the time these men were employed by the National Film Board?
2.	If so, to whom were these taxi accounts paid?
3.	What was the amount in the case of each of the above named men?


Mr. McCANN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	In Ottawa payments were made to Buske's taxi, Red Line taxi, Gibson's taxi and Landre-ville taxi.
3.	Taxi charges for Mr. Grierson in Ottawa totalled $1,090.15, and outside of Ottawa $1,370.39 during the period September, 1940, to October 31, 1945.
Taxi charges for Mr. Legg in Ottawa totalled $623.94, and outside of Ottawa $395.80 during the period September, 1940, to April 2, 1946.



AMBASSADORS AND FOREIGN MINISTERS

Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	How many Canadian ambassadorial and ministerial posts in countries outside of the British commonwealth remain vacant?
2.	What are the names of such countries and for how long had the vacancy in each instance existed?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
1.	One.
2.	The Canadian embassy in Chile has been headed by a Charge d'Affaires since the departure of Mr. W. F. Chipman, K.C., on August 21, 1945, to assume his new post as Canadian ambassador to Argentina.

Questions



TAXES ON DISTILLERIES AND MALTSTERS

Mr. McCULLOUGH (Assiniboia):: 1.	What was the total revenue from tax on distilleries for the years 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945?
2.	What was the total revenue from tax on maltsters for the years 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945?


Mr. McCANN:: 1. Apart from sales tax, the total revenue from tax on distilleries during the years mentioned was nil. It is impossible to state the amount of sales tax paid by distilleries for this is not kept separate. The amounts of excise duty paid year by year were as follows:
1939		 $ 9,929,585
1949	 12,478,114
1941		 17,695,951
1942		 21,994,307
1943		 31,612,277
1944		 30,908,236
1945		 31,576,776
2. The same remarks apply to question 2. The amounts of excise duty paid year by year were as follows:
1939	 $ 8,177,299
1940		 11,405,151
1941		 16,801,740
1942		 25,241,291
1943		 33,952,237
1944		 35,080,381
1945		 35,121,290



GULF OF GEORGIA-SEINE AREA NO. 17

Mr. REID:: 1.	Have any representations been made to the Hon. Minister of Fisheries requesting the enlarging or opening up seine area No. 17 in the Gulf of Georgia, for the operation of seine fishing during the fishing season of 1946?
2.	If so, what are the names of individuals, companies or associations who have made such representations?


Mr. BRIDGES:: 1.	Representations have been made to the Department of Fisheries.
2.	Salmon Canners' Operating Committee, Vancouver, B.C.; Fishing Vessel Owners' Association, Vancouver, B.C.; United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union, Vancouver, B.C.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Gordon Graydon: il. Has Canada any representation in India through its departments of Trade and Commerce and/or External Affairs?
2. If so, what is the nature of such representation and who are our representatives?
rMr. St. Laurent.]


VETERANS AFFAIRS-LEGAL SERVICES- W. C. THOMSON, K.C.
Mr. HOMUTH:: What fees have been paid to W. C. Thomson, K.C., 21 Lombard street, Toronto, by the Department of Veterans Affairs for each month since he has handled the department's land transfers?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Thomas Reid: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents forwarded to the Hon. Minister of Fisheries in regard to the enlarging or opening up of seine area No. 17, in the Gulf of Georgia, for the operation of seine fishing during the fishing season of 1946?


Thomas Reid: With regard to this notice, with the permission of the house I should like to add the words, after "the Hon. Minister of Fisheries", "and any of his officials."


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries the hon. member will allow this to stand.


James Horace King: Stand.



REDISTRIBUTION-AMENDMENTS TO BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT

['Has the Acting Prime Minister any information as to the place of residence in Canada of any of the five persons mentioned?\nMr. ST. LAURENT: No, I have not. They were in Yugoslavia and were interned while residing there, at least temporarily, and because of their dual nationality an intervention on their behalf has been made for the Canadian government by the British embassy at Belgrade.']
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: For a copy of all correspondence and other documents exchanged between the federal government and the provincial governments, since the census of 194.1, relative to amendments to the British North America Act and the redistribution of seats in the House of Commons.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: As I understand the bon. member's question, it refers to correspondence dealing with amendments to the British North America Act on the subject of redistribution. On that understanding there would be no objection to the motion being passed; otherwise it would require that every department make a long search of all its files to see if there have not been suggestions of possible amendments to the British North America Act in respect of other matters. As an illustration, my department has had correspondence with attorneys-general with respect to the possibility of making some provision for fixing a retiring age of judges. The terms of the motion seem a little ambiguous, but if we are to understand that it refers to such correspondence as may have dealt with the problem of redistribution it can be passed.


Mr. BROOKS:: The hon. member for
Cumberland is not here, but I understand that that was his intention.

External Affaris
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Then perhaps it can be passed with the understanding that that is what it refers to, and if he wishes something else he can make another motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Douglas Charles Abbott: With the permission of the house, Mr. Speaker, I should like to revert to motions, and to move, seconded by Mr. Chevrier:
That items Nos. 41 to 56, both inclusive, of the estimates for 1946-47, approved and reported upon by the standing committee on external affairs, be referred to the committee of supply.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, may I rise in connection with this matter of the report from the external affairs committee. This, I believe, is the first occasion on which the House of Commons has referred to a standing committee ordinary estimates relating to a department, and the point I desire to make is this. I am querying the procedure. It may be that it is correct, but I had thought that on the motion for concurrence in the report, which has been presented only to-day, these estimates would be dealt with instead of being sent to the committee of supply. I do not wish to raise a question at this time except as a form of notice, because I am not quite sure of my ground, and I doubt very much whether the government itself is, since this is a new problem and presents a new issue. Those who are responsible in matters of this kind, together with Your Honour, would perhaps look into the question. What we do here may be regarded as a precedent in the years that lie ahead, because no doubt as time goes on more estimates will be referred to standing committees. I suggest therefore that we ought to have the procedure delineated and clarified at the beginning.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I understand the procedure to be this. The Department of External Affairs as such is not yet in supply, and only when it is in supply can these estimates be properly referred to supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Prime Minister): The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) referred yesterday to a report 63260-260i
in the press that the minister of state of the United Kingdom had said in the House of Commons in London that he understood that five Canadians wrere among the British subjects at present held by the Yugoslav government. I informed the hon. member that I would look into this matter and try to let him have some information to-day.
The reported statement by Mr. Noel Baker coincides with information available here. Five persons who are Canadian nationals are at present known to be in internment in Yugoslavia. These persons are:
Mrs. Nick (Anna) Schwartz and daughter Hilga.
Miss Barbara Mueller.
Mrs. Mathias (Katharina) Dorner and daughter Catherine.
Of these persons, all except Catherine Dorner were bom in Yugoslavia, and all are dual nationals-that is, all are Yugoslav .citizens under Yugoslav law as well as Canadian nationals under Canadian law. It is understood that the Yugoslav government has interned all Yugoslav citizens of German race.
The repatriation of these five persons to Canada has been authorized, and the British embassy in Belgrade has been requested to ask the Yugoslav government to release them for such repatriation. The house will appreciate, however, that a case of this kind, where the persons involved are also citizens of the state in which they are held, is very different from a case in which a foreign government is holding persons who are aliens under its own laws.
Gordon Graydon: Has the Acting Prime Minister any information as to the place of residence in Canada of any of the five persons mentioned?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, I have not. They were in Yugoslavia and were interned while residing there, at least temporarily, and because of their dual nationality an intervention on their behalf has been made for the Canadian government by the British embassy at Belgrade.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Russell Boucher: May I ask the Minister of Public Works whether steps can be taken immediately to discontinue the nightly nuisance caused in, the vicinity of the Chateau Laurier by the working of air drills on the streets at Confederation square? This nightly nuisance unduly disturbs
Immigration

our tourists and guests, including members of this august parliament, in their midnight slumbers. Possibly the temper of this chamber is being damaged thereby.


Mr. PEARKES:: On a question of privilege, may I say that I am convinced that my efficiency as a member of parliament is seriously curtailed by this nightly torture, which is reminiscent only of a dentist's chair, and I have no intention of supporting any vote for the federal district until the noise stops.


Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public Works):: I sincerely hope hon. members do not blame the Minister of Public Works for all that noise. I am probably the most quiet man in this chamber. I have just received notice of the question and am having an inquiry made. I do not know personally about the noise, nor have I any ^ personal knowledge whether the work is being done under my department. In fact I have no personal knowledge of any of these -things, because after midnight I am generally not in Ottawa.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Prime Minister): Since I answered the question of the hon, member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) concerning the movement to Canada of 4,000 Polish army men, further information obtained from the office of the high commissioner in London has been received, and I am now able to say that arrangements being made for the movement of these Polish army men are for shipping that is to be in addition to all that had been previously arranged, and that there is no question of this shipping reducing the tonnage to be available to the Canadian government for other purposes.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I wish to direct to the Minister of National Defence a question, notice of which, I am sorry to say, I have not given him. I understand there is a committee sitting under Brigadier Lett in connection with the future of the royal military college. Has the minister any report in that regard?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes. The committee was under the chairmanship of Brigadier Sherwood Lett of Vancouver, a very distinguished soldier. It has made its report, but owing to pressure of other work I have not yet had an opportunity of giving it full consideration. That will be done in due course.



PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: In view of -the interest, which is very widespread, in the proposals being made by the allied powers with respect to the peace treaties of five ex-enemy countries in Europe, I wonder whether the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs could arrange to have those proposed peace treaties incorporated in some form so that the members of the house may be enabled to read them concurrently with the discussions and deliberations that are taking place in Paris. Everyone is intensely interested in the matter, and only newspaper reports are available at the moment. I suggest that members of parliament ought to have in their possession something official, if that is at all possible and convenient to the government.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs): I shall be glad to make inquiries and to endeavour to accommodate hon. members to the greatest possible extent in that regard.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS ACTION AS TO AGREEMENTS IN ABSENCE OF PRIME MINISTER AND MINISTER OF FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. CHESTER S. McLURE (Queens): Arising out of a letter I received to-day, I wish to direct a question, to the leader of the house. During the absence of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance will the Minister of Justice and the Acting Minister of Finance be in a position to deal with the provinces regarding agreements on dominion-provincial matters?
Douglas Charles Abbott: The answer is yes.

Pension Act



EXTRADITION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead): I wish to ask the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he has any further information concerning a treaty which very directly affects my constituents; I refer to the extradition treaty between the United States and Canada.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs): This is the first reference I have heard to that treaty for several weeks, but I shall be glad to take the question as a notice and make inquiries and find out what is the present situation.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved the second reading of bill No. 329, to amend the Pension Act.
He said: Since I dealt with this matter yesterday I have just two words to say. In the first place I believe the committee on veterans affairs practically unanimous in regard to at least the general principles of this legislation. In the second place the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker), the parliamentary assistant, will have the honour to direct and pilot the legislation through the house.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yesterday the minister made a concise statement with reference to the matters which had been before the veterans committee. As he indicated, these matters have been carefully considered for many weeks. We dlid come to an agreement as to the procedure to be followed with reference to these bills. We agreed that any discussion which took place would be not on the resolutions but on second reading.
As the minister pointed out, this has been a long and tedious task for the members of the committee. We met sometimes itwo and three times a day. Speaking for myself-and I know that my experience was that of every other hon. member of the committee-I found it difficult at times to carry on other duties so far as the House of Commons was concerned.
The minister will agree that we were not unanimous on all bills. Neither was the committee unanimous on all the recommendations with respect to individual bills. I think I can say with regard to some of the bills that possibly there was unanimous consent. Others were carried by the majority vote of the committee. While still others had the
majority support of the committee, they were changed to suit the will and pleasure of the government. That is a fair statement to make.
I agree with the minister that a prolonged discussion of these bills is unnecessary. These matters have 'been discussed in the committee for some weeks. All the arguments pro and con have been advanced; and they can be found in the reports of the committee. However, there are certain things which hon. members would like to mention in the house. I *was much interested yesterday afternoon in the minister's remarks. Since I was a member of the committee I was pleased with the eulogy he paid to the work of the committee. I am also looking forward to the presentation of the medals to which the minister says the members are deserving. I should also like to point out that while the minister rather takes all the credit for the veterans' charter-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, no.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Not to himself, no. While he gives credit for it to the committee, and possibly to his own actions as minister over the last number of years, I think in all modesty that we cannot take all the credit. This veterans' charter is not the product, of the present committee; it is the prodiuct of many years of work of committees which have met' in the past. Take our Pension Act as an example. It is not the product of the work of the 1946 committee. As a matter of fact we made few changes in it. The Pension Act has been an evolution from 1916, when the first committee was set up, down to the present time. Hundreds of members of different parliaments who sat on previous committees also deserve credit for this so-called veterans' charter. Credit is also due to organizations entirely outside of parliament. I wish to pay tribute to the men of the Canadian Legion. I 'believe there would be no veterans' charter to-day if it were left entirely to the members of the House of Commons. The results of our work have been based partly on the recommendations made by the Canadian Legion, the Canadian Corps Association, and the Amputations Association. I could mention the Canadian army and navy veterans association and many others which have contributed to a great extent to this so-called veterans' charter of which the minister spoke yesterday.
As to its being the finest committee that has sat, I will agree with that, but in reading over the names of some of the men, who have headed committees in the past I must say that I have been greatly impressed by their stature both in public and in private life. There was Mr. W. F. Nickle, an outstanding man in his
Pension Act

time. There was Mr. Newton. W. Rowell, an outstanding man of his time, Mr. Hume Cronyn, Sir Herbert Marler, the Hon. Cyrus Macmillan, the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), also a member of this committee. May I also add, Mr. Speaker, that he is an hon. member who had the affection of the soldiers of the last war and has at least the affection of the men of the air force of this war. Therefore we cannot claim all the credit when we consider the names of the men who have worked hardl on committees in the past.
The minister paid a tribute to our chairman. We all enjoyed working under the chairman. We did not always agree with him. Sometimes we were afraid that he might blow up, but fortunately it did not happen. I will agree that he is deserving of a medal. I would also suggest that not only is he deserving of a medal in the work he did in the veterans' committee, but he should get a bar to his medal for going out to lead the Liberal party in Saskatchewan.


John Ritchie MacNicol: He ought to get the V.C. for that.


Gordon Graydon: That is a great act of bravery,.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It is not my intention to review, as the minister did yesterday, all the legislation which is to come before us. We have the Pension Act before us at the present time. The introduction of the Pension Act creates great interest not only here but also throughout the country, because it is the expression, through its representatives, of Canada's intention to provide for those who have suffered most in the defence of this country and of civilization. In their gratitude the Canadian people should feel, and I am sure do feel, that the best is none too good. We sometimes compare our veterans' legislation and our Pension Act with the legislation of other countries, and perhaps make comparisons without knowing the facts. I am not going to belittle Canadian legislation relating to veterans; I think possibly it is as good as the legislation anywhere in the world. Not long ago I read an article in a United States magazine in which it was claimed that they had the best legislation, so perhaps it is a case of each man thinking his own home is the best. However, I am satisfied that our legislation is good. It should be. There is no reason why Canada should not make provision as good as if not better than that of any other country in the world, because I believe Canada came through the war better than any other country. That is so for many reasons. In the first place,

of course, we were a long distance from the scene of conflict and had no cities or towns destroyed. Our countryside was not devastated. Apart from the great loss we suffered in young manhood, Canada was not greatly disturbed or greatly troubled. So perhaps when we compare our legislation with that of Great Britain, whose cities were devastated from one end of the country to the other; with that of France or Holland or Belgium, or the enemy countries of Italy and Germany, we are not actually comparing comparable things. So I say there is no reason at all why we should not have the finest veterans legislation anywhere in the world.	-
This legislation, I believe, can be divided into two distinct classes. First, and very important, is the legislation providing for the men who returned to this country sound in body and in mind. These are the young men who went over to fight our battles and who returned to take their place in civilian life. We have passed a good deal of legislation affecting these young men; but I sometimes wonder what is their reaction when, after fighting overseas for five years or more, a year after the end of the war they find the present chaotic condition in regard to labour and industry. I am not going to blame either industry or labour for this situation, since a committee of this house is considering the matter at the present time, but it must be the subject of serious thought on the part of these young men who gave years of their lives in the defence of liberty to find a certain amount of chaos in the country, with more in prospect. There are two things in particular which these young men want. They lost four or five years of their lives as far as education is concerned, and it is the duty of the government, the duty of the people of Canada, to see that they are provided with educational opportunities. This is being done in a large way by the government and the country; but the principal thing a young man wants, coming back to Canada to-day, is the opportunity to earn a living. We sometimes hear irresponsible people, both ex-soldiers and civilians, say, "Oh, the country owes me a living." The country does not owe any man a living. The country does owe every young man and woman in this country an opportunity to make a living. It also owes them an opportunity to establish homes for themselves, where they can bring up their children with proper educational facilities and in pleasant surroundings. These are the two things which I believe should be kept in mind in regard to the reestablishment of our young men who have returned from the war.

Pension Act
The second and probably most important class of legislation deals with the men who have come back maimed in body and mind, and the dependents of those who lost their lives overseas. They are supposed to be protected by the Pension Act and its amendment. It would take me a long time to go into the different sections of this act and comment upon them; as a matter of fact we received it only a few minutes ago. Yesterday the minister emphasized that one great principle was to be included in the act; that is, the insurance principle. We remember that this principle formed part of the Pension Act for a great many years. It was first enacted in 1919, and was removed in 1940. So while this insurance principle is perhaps the most important feature of this legislation and the most important thing to be done in connection with pension legislation by the committee, we are simply restoring something which was in the act from 1919 to 1940.
There are two principles in connection with Canadian pensions, and I should like to quote something that was said in connection with the 1919 legislation:
The so-called insurance principle. On this basis ex-members of the forces were pensioned not only for any disability "attributable to military service," but as well for any disability "incurred on" service.
That is the explanation of the insurance principle.
Canada insured her soldiers for all disabilities incurred by them during their service period . . .
Commenting on that principle Mr. Rowell said:
Our law as it stands is broader than the pension law in any other country, so far as we know. The insurance feature which I have mentioned is not in any other law, so far as I am aware. 'In that respect we give the soldier the benefit of insurance during the whole period of the war.
That was the attitude in 1919.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That was Mr. Lemieux and Mr. Rowell, in the 1919 committee.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: And I may say that early in the proceedings of the committee dealing with the Pension Act I moved that the insurance principle be restored. That motion was generally supported by hon. members, and though we were left in doubt by the government for a considerable time, eventually the principle found its way back into the act, and I am sure everyone is very pleased as a result.
Another point gave us considerable concern in the committee, where it was debated on numerous occasions by the hon. member
for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) and others, having to do with section 11 (1) (c) of the act, reading as follows:
No deduction shall be made from the degree of actual disability of any member of the forces, who has served in a theatre of actual war during the great war or during the war with the German Reich, on account of any disability or disabling condition which existed in him prior to his period of service in either of the aforesaid wars.
Then it goes on to mention three exceptions:
... no pension shall be paid for a disability or disabling condition which, at the time he became a member of the forces, was wilfully concealed, was obvious or was recorded on medical examination prior to enlistment.
There was no exception taken, but the committee felt, and I think they were expressing the opinion of most returned men, that the phrase "wilfully concealed" should be struck out of the act, and it was so moved by the hon. member for Vancouver South. I believe the committee carried that motion but the department did not feel that this could be done. However, there was a compromise and I see that in the bill, instead of the phrase "wilfully concealed", we have the phrase "wilfully and deliberately concealed." I understood from the members of the commission when this matter was being discussed before the committee that they did not like the words "wilfully concealed." However, apparently they have adopted some modus operandi, if I may call it that, and while a certain stigma against a returned soldier intimating he was concealing something might be implied, I think they got around it in some way in actually carrying out the intentions of the act. I am sorry it is not being taken out now, and I hope at some time in the future it shall be taken from the act.
Another point brought up was in connection with the dateline. I was pleased to hear the minister say yesterday that as far as children of veterans are concerned there will be no dateline with regard to the granting of pensions.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We can thank the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) for that.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is a fact, that is, provided that the parents are married before May 1, 1944. The minister will remember that this point was the cause of considerable controversy, because it was felt to be unfair that children born after that date should not be given the same opportunity as children bom before. It is a matter of some disappointment that the dateline was not eliminated entirely from the act, that is, as it applies to widows as well as to children. There are
Pension Act

many veterans of the first war who are getting to be comparatively old men and who have lost their first wives. In their later days many of them feel that they would like to have companionship and they marry again. If a veteran marries a second time I do not see why his second wife should not receive the same consideration as a first wife.
We were met with the argument that there might be deathbed marriages, but in looking through the act I find that there is ample protection in that regard. Subsection 2 of section 32 provides that if the death of a husband has occurred less than one year subsequent to the date of marriage and the commission has information that at the time of such marriage he had a reasonable expectation of survival, for at least one year afterward, the matter shall be considered. That section provides for the non-payment of a pension where there is a deathbed marriage.
Another matter discussed extensively in the committee was the question of preenlistment condition. I do not intend to take up the time of the house this afternoon in discussing this matter, because there are other hon. members who will follow me and I am sure they will discuss it fully. There was also the question of the automatic increase in disability pension. Many members of the committee felt that not only should the man who suffered a gunshot wound and who was in receipt of a fifty per cent pension receive a higher entitlement on reaching the respective ages of 55 years, 57 years and 59 years, but that any man who had a disability, whether a gunshot wound or other impairment of health, should have his pension increased. This was not granted.
I should like to say a few words with reference to hospitalization. When overseas in 1942 and again for a short time in 1944 and 1945 I had the opportunity of visiting many of our military hospitals. I do not think I can pay too high a tribute to the work that was done in those hospitals. I think the lower casualties in the last war can be attributed more to the improved science of medicine and the treatment of wounds and disease than to anything else. In those hospitals we had the finest doctors and nurses that it was possible to get. I hope an effort will be made to get the same type of nurse and the same type of doctor for our veterans' hospitals as were in charge of our military hospitals.
There seems to be some overcrowding in the veterans' hospitals at the present time. The minister has increased greatly the number of beds in the different hospitals during the last few years, but there is still some overcrowding. I think it was shortsighted on the

part of the government not to have certain hospitals ready immediately the war was over. We knew there would be a great need for hospitalization. For instance, the hospital in Toronto should have been completed before the war ended.
Large sums of money were expended upon building and equipping military hospitals throughout the country. For instance, three or four hundred thousand dollars were spent upon the military hospital located at Windsor, Nova Scotia. This hospital was located on diked land, and at times the dikes broke and water surrounded the area. The department was advised to build the hospital upon higher ground, but they did not do so. This was one of the best equipped military hospitals in the country. Doctors going overseas who inspected the hospital commented upon the splendid equipment. My submission is that hospitals such as the one at Windsor and those in other parts of Canada should have been built in locations where they could have been used as veterans' hospitals.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: During the last four or five weeks we have taken over about fifteen military hospitals. I sent a list across to the hon. member for Vancouver South.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I know the department has taken over those hospitals, but my point is that certain hospitals such as the one at Windsor, Nova Scotia, were not built in the proper place. If that particular hospital had been built half a mile from its present location it would have been better suited as a veterans' hospital. I know the minister has taken over the hospital in my own town of Sussex, New Brunswick, which hospital has a very beautiful location and I am sure it will be popular.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I agree with that.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: There is another matter which was not taken up in the veterans committee but which I think will have to receive the attention not only of parliament but of the country within the next few years. I refer to the plight of our older veterans. I believe there are some seven veterans' homes in Canada, but they are more or less for veterans who need hospitalization. I am referring to the older veteran, the man who perhaps is living alone in some isolated part of the country. There must be hundreds of them. I think we should do what other countries such as Great Britain and the United States have done, build homes in which our older veterans can live. Canada has been engaged in two major wars in the last thirty years, the first great war and the last great war.

Pension Act
It has perhaps not been necessary to have old soldiers' homes in this country hitherto, but I believe the time has now come when we should have homes where these older men can get together and be happy and discuss the battles of the past, or as Goldsmith said, shoulder their crutch and show how wars were won.
There is another matter to which I should like to refer; it has to do with my own section of the dominion. I want to read a statement made by Major General Burns as reported in the Montreal Gazette of July 4 of this year. Speaking of the rehabilitation programme he said:
The department was satisfied with the rate of employment in its various districts across the dominion except for the maritimes, where veterans applying for out-of-work allowance were three times the proportion of elsewhere.
The difficulty there appears to be, the general noted, that in certain regions conditions for employment will not improve particularly and, although some authorities had recommended a programme of public works for the area, the Department of Reconstruction has decided against such measure at the present time. The question that remained was whether migration to other areas should be encouraged.
By the same token, veteran's preference has been effective right across the country except in the maritimes.
It will be noted that General Burns emphasizes four points in that statement. The first is that three times the number of veterans applied for out-of-work benefits in the maritime provinces than applied in other parts of Canada. That indicates one thing, that the opportunities for employment in the martime provinces are not nearly as great as they are in other parte of Canada. It means that we have three times as many veterans out of work in the martimes as there are in any other part of this country.
The second point was that while the authorities had recommended a programme of public works the Department of Reconstruction had decided against it. I have been surprised, Mr. Speaker, that with the amount of unemployment which there has been in Canada, and which there is to-day particularly in the maritimes, some programme of public works has not been started by this government and by the local governments in order to give these young men work.
His third statement was whether migration to other areas should be encouraged. That is a suggestion to which I am sure we in the maritime provinces take strong exception. For too long have our young men from the maritime provinces been migrating elsewhere. Of the class that graduated in engineering from the university of New Brunswick a few months ago, and it was one of the largest 63260-261
engineering classes they had ever had, only two young men could find employment in their native province. We of the maritime provinces want employment for our young people. We want them to have an opportunity to live and work and remain in their own province and not be forced to go to the United States, as tens of thousands of them have had to do in years past, or to the central provinces or to the west. We want them to stay in the maritime provinces. I do urge, upon the government so far as that section of this country is concerned that some public works be started, and be started at once in order to retain the young men from the maritime provinces in their native land and in their own home. I could suggest many public works that could advantageously be started, but I will not take the time of the house to do it to-day.
The fourth point made by General Bums was that the veteran's preference has been effective right across the country except in the maritimes. That simply means that there is more attention paid to political appointments in the maritime provinces than to appointments based on the veteran's preference. I have had many communications with reference to different departments of the government where the veteran's preference is not being observed as it should be. I appeal to the government that in making appointments in all departments of the government the veteran's preference be given every consideration. Only a few days ago I had a letter from a lawyer in the maritime provinces, a man who had a very fine record overseas. He lives in quite a large town, but he gets no work in connection with the Veterans Land Act administration. He writes me that men who never saw service at all are doing all the legal work. This should not be. The returned soldier would rather deal with another returned soldier than with a civilian. I hope that the different departments will check up on this matter.
In closing I should like to pay a tribute to some of the heads of the different branches administering veterans' affairs. I believe that at the head of these branches and departments we have some of the best men it would be possible for us to obtain. I might mention Mr. Woods, the deputy minister of the Department of Veterans Affairs; General Burns, whose statement I have just quoted with respect to the maritimes-and let me say that I was not criticizing him when I quoted his statement because I think the department was fortunate indeed in getting such a man. I will also mention Brigadier Melville, Colonel Garneau and Mr. Murchison. I believe that they all have the interests of the veterans at heart. The difficulty is not

Pension Act

with the men at the head, but rather with the men spread across the country. Sometimes there is too much red tape and too much confusion.
I have nothing to add, Mr. Speaker, except to repeat that I hope that the veteran's preference will be very carefully considered in all appointments made in all the provinces.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Tem-iscouata): Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. and gallant, member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) upon his very fine speech. He has a fine military record, and he loves the soldiers. He himself has done a lot for them. I remember that on the civil service committee several years ago during two sessions he made some most valuable suggestions. I can say the same of my hon. friend the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) who sits in front of him.
I shall not take very long, Mr. Speaker, to express what I have to say on this bill. But first I should like to pay a special tribute to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie). He is gifted with a very kind heart, and when there is some difficulty we may appeal to him in confidence of having the wrong redressed. I understand1 that his task is not always easy, but it is made less difficult by the excellent cooperation which he receives from his parliamentary assistant, the hon. member for Rosthem (Mr. Tucker). Both are good giants, giants in mind as well as in body; they work a lot; they know how to work-which is happening quite seldom in this vicinity-and they do their best to help others. But before going farther, I hope that the minister will be in a position to make an estimate of the approximate cost of these eleven bills. It will be quite heavy, and it is the kind of information which we should have.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This year, $850 million -$693 million in the main estimates, plus $175 million supplementaries.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes. This is where one large proportion of the taxes will go.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is right.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will it be $690 million next year?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No; it will be much less next year.


Jean-François Pouliot: What will it be next year?


Walter Adam Tucker: The total cost of the programme, not counting the pensions with respect to world war I, and one other item

having to do with world war I, will be approximately $1,500 million for the whole programme of rehabilitation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is quite a lot.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is a very large sum of money, but I would be better disposed to vote for it than to vote for the loan, and if the loan had not been made we would have had that much more to spend.


Walter Adam Tucker: May I interrupt my hon. friend? That $1,500 million will be spread over the next six years, approximately.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Cannot we have both?


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, I wonder. If my hon. friends like the taxes that the Canadian people will have to pay we could double it, iust because of their liking taxation.
But there are unpopular measures which are necessary, and one, which was suggested years ago by the hon. member for Temis-couata, would be a check-up of all pensions of the first war. At the present time we expend a considerable amount of money for pensions which are paid on account of service in the first world war. Would1 it not be profitable for the country to have an independent check-up made of each case to see if the money goes to those who are entitled to it, or if the circumstances have changed? This would be unpopular, but I remind the minister that a large amount of money can be provided for military' pensions without the expected political return being received. No one forgets that in 1930 the government was lavish with pensions and the government was defeated1, and that in 1935 another government was also lavish and that government was defeated-which means that no one should have a political motive in dealing with matters of the kind.
Another thing which struck me in reading this bill No. 329, to amend the Pension Act is the reference to world war I and world war II which is often repeated in the various sections of the bill. I hope that, in the future, amendments to the Pension Act for world war III will not appear; that we shall stop at world war II. When I think of the pensions to those who are still alive after having been disabled, and when I think of the pensions to the dependents, I have to think also of the fine youth who had to pay the price of war with their own blood, and the loss of powerful brains, young brains, brains of men who could have served their country very well and who lie under white crosses in the cemeteries of Europe and other parts of the world. It impresses me deeply, and I

Pension Act
consider that the country has a duty to perform with regard to those who have been in the army. It is the duty of the collectivity.
But. it is not because a man has been in the army that he is entitled to a pension. He is entitled to it because of certain considerations due to the difficulties he has encountered in service. If a young man has enlisted or has joined the colours and has done his duty either in this country or outside it, has followed the orders of his commanding officer and has done well, and comes back in good health, he is not entitled to any pension. The pension is for the disabled and for the dependents of the departed and of those who are unable to earn their livelihood. It may be that service in the army is a very good and profitable experience to the young man who comes back in good health. But so many are handicapped; so many have suffered wounds, have lost an arm, a leg. an eye or are totally deprived of sight, or have sustained other disabilities that it is impossible to think of them with "a dry heart." I was in close touch with soldiers and veterans during the whole war; I considered it my duty to listen to them and to try to help them out whenever the occasion occurred if it was possible to do so. It was done in various ways, and I saw the close connection that existed between the Department of National Defence and the then Department of Pensions and National Health. It is my duty to pay a special tribute to my hon. friend the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Macdonald), who did so much for the boys when he was parliamentary assistant to the then minister of national defence. His kindness, his thoughtfulness and his conscientious study of long and tedious files brought cheer to many homes. It was not interesting; it was not pleasurable, but in spite of his other occupations he considered it a duty to come to the assistance of young men who were not treated by the medical corps with the consideration that they deserved.
A member of parliament has many things to do, but one of his duties is to listen to those who are in trouble and in difficulty and to try to do something for them, and what I happened to do was to receive in my office some boys who were unfit. In spite of the fact that they were unfit and sometimes disabled, they were graded A by the army. Some were suffering from goitre; others from chronic appendicitis; others had one eye; others had lumps the size of my fist on the spine. They could neither stand nor sit upright. Others suffered from other disabilities. They were, however, all graded A. I have a letter from the department to the effect that they were 63260-2612
fit and that if they complained it was because there was something wrong with their minds rather than with their bodies.
I asked my friend Colonel Desrosiers, who as deputy minister of national defence did so much for the boys, to look into the matter, and these men were submitted to another examination. I asked that they be examined by competent doctors. After instructions from the deputy minister and my hon. friend the junior member for Halifax, they were examined and found unfit; and they were found unfit because of disabilities that existed at the time they were declared fit.
What happened afterwards? They were not given a pension but were told that their unfitness predated their entry into the army, and the matter was left at that. It is cruel; but at least, with the assistance of my hon. friend and the assistance of Colonel Desrosiers, I succeeded in getting them out of the army, because it is my deep conviction, in spite of what has been said about the Pulhems system, that it is absurd to keep in the army, and at the expense of the country, one who is practically unfit. But that is not all. There were times when pensions were granted to everybody, and the expenditure was so great that the tap was turned off so that afterwards no one, not even those who were most meritorious, could get anything. They could not get anything because of the enormous expenditures that had been made carelessly before. It is hard to correct it.
I have some files here. There is, for instance, the file of a man who was in the first world war, No. 897, who was one of the first to join the colours and one of the last to be discharged. He was wounded through the body; but, since he was a big man, his disability was not so apparent at the start and he was discharged A-l. Subsequently, however, he had a premature predisposition to certain disabilities, especially rheumatism. He would probably never have had rheumatism if he had not been five years in the trenches, but because he was classified as A when discharged it was impossible to get anything for him. The facts are there, and his number is 897.
This is not the first time that I have mentioned his case in the house, but I have never succeeded in getting anything because of the stubborness of the officials in the Department of Pensions and National Health. I put the name of Brigadier Melville in brackets because he seems to be well disposed, but there are still many who belong to the old school tie and whom it is impossible to move. I wonder what power is needed to make them move and move sensibly. They are there to effect
Pension Act

economy for the country; but watch their own expenditures for themselves and see how lavish they are, while they are stingy to those who deserve something.
I have another case, No. 23923, a man who had a sore leg when he enlisted 'but who was classified A notwithstanding. He was put in charge of the barracks on 'the hill in Levis in the winter-barracks not needed. They were outside, and there was no place where the men could go and warm themselves in the winter. They were exposed to the wind. This man got a disability but it did not count. His disability was said to have predated his enlistment and therefore he got nothing.
I find it a crime; I find it shameful; and 1 call the attention of the minister and of his assistant to these cases. But I do not speak to deaf ears, because in many cases they have helped me out in spite of the procrastination of some men in the department. In fact, procrastination is a euphemism.
Then there is the case of E-36159,, who suffered a rupture. The rupture was cured and to that extent he is all right, but he suffers from a nervous affection and the explanation given is hot clear.
There is another case right- here in the House of Commons. I mentioned it earlier in the session. It is the case of a man who had a bullet through the cheeks and who was given a fifteen per cent disability. He suffers from cancer. This is an elevator man, No. 889897. I am told that he gets all he should get. Well, if we are ready to open the doors of Canada, and to open the taps of the Pension Act to anyone who comes -here and who belongs -to an allied army and who may be domiciled in Canada within two years after the war, we should do something for our own people first.
There are several cases. The minister and his parliamentary assistant have settled admirably the case of Captain Bellew, V.C., who passed over the head of everybody, including the Canadian Legion, and sent an S.O.S. to the member for Temiseouata, who looked after him with all his heart. I thank the minister and his assistant for what they did in this case. But what they did in the case of Bellew should be done for the elevator man here. We hear a lot about public welfare. There is not one of us who would tolerate a thing like that in his own home, and it is done in the home of all of us. I also believe that those who perform a duty in the House of Commons are entitled to the special consideration of members of parliament, just as old employees who live in a home sometimes for two generations, old servants knowing everybody in the family, give good service

and deserve special consideration. I cannot see a man suffering without trying to help him, and I am sure that is the feeling of all hon. members who are doing me the honour of listening to me at this time.
Speaking of cases, there is something else I would mention. I have murder cases, cases of men of the army who were nearly murdered by the incompetency of the medical corps under Chisholm, that most nefarious man. He was in charge of the medical corps under the Department of National Defence, a most incompetent man, a cruel man. He was responsible for all the suffering of many soldiers who could not get justice, who could not get fair treatment. He is now in charge of the health of the world. What a shame! I do not discuss the theories which he has expounded over the air or in public meetings. I say that man is a criminal because so many men in the army have suffered on account of him, and I have to fight twice as hard because of his stupidity and ignorance.


Mr. GRANT:: Poor Santa Claus suffered, too.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not talking of Santa Claus; I am talking of the soldiers who have suffered because of the stupidity and incompetence of Chisholm.
I have many murder cases. The Hornblow family of Toronto has sent me a whole file which was transcribed by the hand of the mother of the boy who was killed because of the stupidity of the doctors who did not give him the proper treatment, and the doctors were exonerated. We cannot have justice, because it is precisely the guilty party who supplies the evidence against those who have grounds for complaint. Here is my murder case. He was a fine boy, and his mother is a widow. His number was E-630952. Here was a boy suffering from a heart condition. He did his duty. He was called and reported. He had leave during Christmas about two years ago. He went home and fainted while he was there. He had a certificate from his family doctor that he was suffering from a heart condition. He brought the certificate to the camp and gave it to the sergeant. He was examined. And mark you, sir, I know whereof I speak. He was examined by a heart specialist who found that there was something wrong with him and marked it on the sheet. Then the chairman of the board struck it out and the boy was told to go back to the barracks. He could not do any drill. He asked for a doctor. The doctor was refused. They told him that he was a faker. He asked for a padre. They did not inform

Pension Act
the padre. This faker, according to the words of the sergeant, went to bed. He was found dead fifteen or twenty minutes afterwards. Those who were there reported that his face was crimson when he went to bed, because he was suffering from a heart condition.. I asked for a pension for his mother who has been bereaved so deeply by the death of her child. Because she is a mother who has other children it does not follow that she did not suffer deeply when that child died. I was told that his death was not the result of his military service, and that it had nothing to do with it. Welt, if it had nothing to do with his service, your name, sir, is not Mr. Speaker and mine is not Jean Francois Pouliot. It is incredible. It is stamped with cruelty just as is the face of the man who was the chairman of the board and who took upon himself the tremendous responsibility to strike out the report of the heart specialist. The mother is entitled to a pension, and I send my whole file to the parliamentary assistant to the minister and ask him to have the case reviewed. I want a pension for the mother, and if I do not get it I will speak on each bill until the mother gets it, but I know I shall not have to do that, because it is a big file like a book. I know that I shall not have to do that because I do not speak to deaf ears, but it is something incredible.
There is something else; there is the distinction which has been made between those who followed the law strictly and those who have enlisted. Can you blame a man for following the law and abiding by it? Take a man who is a draftee, and who has been called a zombie. The law called upon him to report to a medical examiner, and then to the registrar. Then, if he had no cause for exemption, he had to report to the camp to follow the instructions of his commanding officer. He did all that, but he is looked upon as an untouchable of India. He is a despicable man because he did not enlist. It was so bad that even the man who followed the instructions of his commanding officer over the seas on the continent, and who did very well there, was not entitled to the military preference of the civil service because he had not signed a paper. Because he did not sign for overseas he was disbarred from preference. Happily I got in touch with the deputy minister of national defence and had it corrected, and that man was put in a position to enjoy the military preference just the same as the other boys in the army. Military preference has been so stupidly considered that even a sick man who enlisted, a man who knew that he was unfit, that he would be
rejected, is on the honour roll as one who served his country, although he enlisted only to be discharged. That is the difference. It is absurd. And those men who have enlisted for overseas are not entitled to gratuities. Here is a letter which was written by Mr. McTaggart, assistant director of reestablishment credit:
We wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated July 14 in regard to your entitlement to war service gratuity.
In the War Service Grants Act the definition of service is and we quote "while enlisted or obligated to serve without territorial limitation." It has been confirmed from your file that you were enrolled under the National Resources Mobilization Act and, therefore, you are not qualified by having been enlisted; your file also reveals that your entire service took place in Canada and, therefore, since you did not in fact leave the country, there is no question of your haying been "obligated to serve without territorial limitation."
I did not have time to read the whole bill, but when a man abides by the law he is entitled to the consideration given all good citizens. If the law was made in that way, they were not responsible for it. They obeyed the law, and now there is a difference in the treatment of those who followed both the spirit and the letter of the law and those who signed a paper. How many of the brass hats made Cook's tours over there just in order to qualify for the preference given in respect of overseas service? How many are there in the Department of National Defence who have never been in any theatre of war? Not so long ago I had a list of 280 officers, brass hats of the Department of National Defence, to say nothing of the N.C.O.'s and men, who had never been in any theatre of war but who were sending others over there. What a shame! But these men have received promotions, and they have been given efficiency medals.
There is something else I want to say. With the assistance of the minister, the assistance of his parliamentary assistant, to whom I wish good luck in whatever field he decides to carry on his activities, and the assistance of Brigadier Melville, to whom I want to give the benefit of the doubt and treat just as generously as I can, I hope something will be done to correct the injustices of the past and redress all wrongs. This morning I said Canada was generous to outsiders. That is true. At the present time we complain about the scarcity of lumber; we complain about the scarcity of food, and at the same time we keep men in the clink because they believed what had been said in this house by the Prime Minister, that the farmers were to be exempt from military service. Those men are in the
Pension Act

clink now, and some of them are in gaol. Those connected with the air force are in Bordeaux gaol, in Montreal, and they are handicapped as a result.
We are now discussing the pensions that are to be given. I am ready to give pensions to those who deserve them; I shall not kick about them; but, on the other hand, I think it is time to consider the war as a thing of the past and to look at the future in a different way from what has been the case up to the present. Those who 'have run the Department of National Defence, those who have been the power behind the throne in that department, are jingoists without war records. Those who have been in theatres of war, during either the first or second great wars, are more lenient. They have a broader outlook and are ready to act as civilized human beings. The others know very well they will be out on the street as soon as the army is demobilized; there will be no more soft jobs for them, so that they exercise their cruelty against honest citizens who deserve better treatment. If you are not satisfied that what I have said is the truth, Mr. Speaker, I can give the names of all those parasites who would be on the streets to-morrow if the clinks were closed. They are in the department; they are important; they travel like Xerxes when he crossed the Hellespont. One must admire them in their smart uniforms; they think they are masters of the land. I not believe members of the House of Commons are precisely -masters of the land, but they could easily be the masters of parliament if they ever felt like it. It is time to close the clinks. Why is it necessary to follow the example of the Meighen government, which was so unpopular that it was rejected by the people and Meighen could not be elected afterwards? Why follow that example? Well, there is a very good reason. It is that those who rule now in the Department of National Defence are exactly those who ruled when Meighen was in power, and it is those -men we have to fire at once.
There is one thing more I want to say before closing. It is that we are more united in misery than in happiness. At the present time, on the shoulders of everyone there is a heavy burden of taxation. It -makes us all feel more like brothers, and we should not be discouraged as to the future. But I hope that out of misery may come good understanding among Canadian citizens, and the example should be given by members of this house, who should come to a common understanding on main issues and decide them according to their good judgment and their patriotism. If I did not -believe sincerely and 
deeply in the good will, honesty, good purpose and patriotism of my colleagues I would not have come -back from God's country, especially at this time of year, to perform a necessary duty as a member of parliament. There is a ray of hope, and that ray of hope exists because of an event which has more importance than any legislation, an event of -more importance in the constitutional life of Canada than any statute of Westminster. I refer to the debate and discussion that took place on the Canada day bill. The matter is of minor importance. Whether it be called confederation day, national day, Canada day, Dominion day or anything else, I do not attach much importance to it; but on that occasion members of the House of Commons united to show that they were conscious of their responsibility, and that they wanted to do something. It was in connection with a minor issue. I hope this will occur each time a major issue arises in parliament; that members of parliament will unite, leaving aside all party considerations to do what they honestly think is good and right and in the interests of the country at large.


Thomas John Bentley: Mr. Speaker, with much of what was said by the honourable and amiable member for Temis-couat-a (Mr. Pouliot) I am in agreement, particularly his remarks dealing with the pre-enlistment disabilities of veterans and their treatment when they apply for pension. However, like the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks), I believe those matters were pretty thoroughly discussed in committee, and I do not propose to take the time of the house in going through all the discussions we carried on there.
It was my good fortune, along with the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. McKay), the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Archibald) and the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Moore), all new members, to be placed on the veterans committee. Two of the senior members of our group, the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) and the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), were also members and were able to give us guidance. Like the hon. member for Ro3fal (Mr. Brooks), I want to say that we enjoyed our association with the chairman. We did not have any really pitched battles. I expected there would be more in the way of political discussion, but there was much less than I expected. As has been mentioned, the chairman did not blow up, but once or twice I would1 not have been surprised if several people had blown up. However, we got over those difficulties with a minimum of partisanship. I believe this was due to the fact that every one, in spite of

Pension Act
what other ideas he may have had, was sincerely interested in trying to see what could be done for the veteran. On certain occasions the genial Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) honoured us with his presence. Occasionally he told us that there were certain points the government refused to accept, but that was the responsibility of the government. The committee could do nothing but accept those statements.
I cannot agree with the hon. member for Temiscouata when he said that officialdom is to blame. I think the officials of the department will do what the government tells them to do. We are hoping that some day the government will tell them to do some of the things that up to date they have not been told to do.
What I rose mainly to say on behalf of the party I represent was that so far as the pension bill is concerned we feel that we have had our part in the debate in the committee. A bill is now before us, having come from the committee, and the legislation will operate in its present form until further amendments are made. In the main we are prepared to watch the operations under this measure and be guided by the experience we gain. When we assemble at the next session we may make suggestions for amendments in the light of the experience we have gained by that time. It is doubtful if any new argument could be advanced, and we feel that that is probably the wisest course to take.
We hope that when parliament reassembles the veterans committee will again be set up. However, I remember one time when the Minister of Veterans Affairs was before the committee and the tension was pretty tight, he expressed the hope that never again would he have to have such a committee to deal with. But that was only on one occasion, and we hope that the committee will be reestablished at the next session so that we shall have an opportunity to make recommendations in the light of the experience we shall have gained. At that time some further appeals may 'be made by this group. I believe one member of this group has a certain definite matter regarding pensions to bring up, and I shall not take any further time because I am under threat of being shot if I speak for more than ten minutes.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Speaker, as a member o'f the veterans committee I should like to join other hon. members in complimenting the chairman upon the way he filled his position. There were times when the debate waxed decidedly acrimonious; but, so far as I remember, on only one occasion did he find it necessary to
call on the deputy chairman to take his place while he let off a little steam. I believe this committee did a good job and has justified the amount of time that it has taken in its deliberations. On the other hand, it is perhaps unfortunate that the government has found it necessary to turn down some of the important recommendations of the committee, thereby nullifying some of the work that was done.
When the veterans committee was set up in 1945 there existed three main objections to the Pension Act. First, the insurance principle had been destroyed!; second, pensions were being denied on the ground that the disability was of pre-enlistment origin and, third, there existed a dead-line of April, 1944, in connection with marriages. By the time the committee had revised a draft of a proposed pension bill all these objections had been removed. Had the government seen fit to accept the draft bill in its amended form, I think we would have had a Pension Act of which we could have been proud. Unfortunately the government found it necessary to refuse to accept our amendments in regard: to the question of pre-enlistment origin and the deadline for marriages.
I should like to deal first with the insurance principle. I heard a few Liberals praise the government for having reinstated the insurance principle. This was done at the very commencement of the deliberations on the Pension Aot. Hon. members should, however, remember that it was the Liberal government that destroyed the insurance principle in May, 1940, by order in council.
If I remember rightly that was done largely as a result of a recommendation by the Minister of Finance. As a consequence several thousand veterans were deprived of pensions during the war and something in the neighbourhood of 200 widows were denied pensions.
A number of the members of the veterans committee which sat in 1940 tried to have the insurance principle reinstated, but the government of that day was not prepared to accede. There was a compromise to the extent of accepting the insurance principle in connection with veterans who were found to be in necessitous circumstances. I think it is important to remember that, while the insurance principle has now been restored, the payment of pensions will start only as of June 1, 1946, and as a consequence several thousand pensioners will have been without pension from the time the insurance principle was destroyed until June, 1946. But certainly I am pleased that the government saw fit to restore the insurance principle even at this late day.
Pension Act

The next point I should like to take up is the question of pensions being denied on the ground that disability was of pre-enlistment origin. The committee discussed this matter at great length. I think veterans have always felt that when a man was medically examined upon enlistment and declared to be in A-l condition, then if he were found to be medically unfit after several months or years of service, no attempt should be made to rule that his disability was of pre-enlistment origin. I think that was quite generally the opinion of the veterans committee. The committee proposed that a man's condition as recorded on his medical sheet at the time of enlistment should be presumed to be his true condition, unless it were found that some disability had been recorded on an examination prior to his enlistment. That amendment was carried; but unfortunately the minister declared, on behalf of the government, that they could not accept it; the bill we now have before us does not contain that amendment and the objectionable feature still remains in the act.
My last point concerns the dead-line for marriages of pensioners. If a pensioner marries after April 1, 1944, no increase is made in his pension because of the change in his status from a single to a married person, and no allowance can be made for children born of such a union. In the event of his death no pension can be paid to his widow. The committee voted unanimously to strike out that dead-line. But again, unfortunately, the government through the minister of pensions refused to accept that amendment, so that the bill before us contains the dead-line of April 1, 1944. The committee I think felt strongly on that question. It is not a big question so far as the money involved is concerned. The cost to the government would not be great to wipe out that dead-line. Today we all consider that it would be to the benefit of Canada to have an increase in population, and no doubt in the not distant future we shall be spending millions of dollars to bring people into this country. I would say that the very best way to expand our population is with Canadian-born children, and what better children could one have than children of veterans? Therefore I cannot understand why the government should discriminate against the old veterans by saying that any children born after a certain date not be recognized so far as pensions are concerned. I hope that, even at this late day, when we get to the section the government may see fit to take that dead-line out of this measure.

Apart from those two points, the dead-line for marriage, and disability of pre-enlistment origin, we in this group are pretty well behind the Pensions Act as it is now before us. But when the appropriate sections come up we shall no doubt have a few words to say on these two particular matters.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, within the last year thousands of our finest young men and women have come back to their homeland from the fighting fronts. Fortunately the majority of them have come back fit, and able to take their place in civilian life. But many have come back disabled. They have been handicapped for life by the service they have rendered to their fellow-Canadians. Many more, fortunately not as many as in the last war, but still many, many thousands of young Canadians who went overseas, will not come back. They are our war dead. But they leave here in Canada to mourn them their dependents and their other loved ones; and these loved ones of our young Canadians who will not come back, are the people in this country who know the real cost of war.
I suggest to this house that our feelings toward these young men and women who have come back and to the dependents of those who do not come back should b.e feelings of admiration and also of gratitude. That should be our approach when we discuss the problems having to do with them. The prime ministers of the empire put it very clearly away back in May of 1944, when at the end of their historic conference in London they issued a statement which contained this sentence:
To all our armed forces who in many lands are preserving our liberty with their lives we express our admiration and gratitude.
That was before D-day, before our troops had landed on the continent of Europe. But we should still have that feeling. We should be filled with admiration and gratitude.
We are under two great obligations. The first is to see that the young people who have come back are absorbed into the life of the nation. The second is that those who are disabled and the dependents of the fallen should be compensated generously for the sacrifices they have made. I do not think there is one member of this house who would disagree with my statement of those two great obligations under which we stand at this present time.
But, Mr. Speaker, it is not only a question of being under these obligations at this time. It is comparatively easy to remember them now, with the war over such a short time ago. But these are obligations that will continue

Pension Act
year in and year out until the last disabled Canadian and the last dependent of a Canadian who did not come back, have passed on. For so long will these obligations remain on the Canadian people. And I make bold to state to-day that these obligations will not be met by any so-called Veterans Charter-of 1946.
The hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) has pointed out that these veterans bills that are to be considered by the house are but one step. They are the legislation which we believe should be enacted at this time. Personally I think it is a great mistake to refer to them as constituting a Veterans Charter. It sounds very nice. It brings a certain amount of credit to those of us on the committee, who really have worked hard and in a fine spirit to see that these bills are the very best that could be written. But the danger is this, that the Canadian people will say: "Oh, well, now that we have written a Veterans Charter we have done what should be done for the veterans; so let us get on with some other business." For that reason I think it was unwise to term these bills a Veterans Charter. I am not questioning the motive in using those words as a title for the bills, but it would have been wiser not to try to spread the impression abroad throughout the land that we are now preparing a great Veterans Charter.
You see, Mr. Speaker, there will be improvements required every year. There are improvements required at this very moment in this Pension Act, which is the bill now being considered. The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) has referred to some defects in the bill. I shall deal to-day with only one, which I urge upon the minister should be remedied before the bill becomes law.
There is no provision in this pension bill for the veteran who has been discharged as medically unfit but yet cannot qualify for pension because of a ruling made by the pension commission -that his disability arose from a pre-enlistmen-t condition. This applies not only to men who served in Canada but also to the young Canadians who served overseas. We were given figures as of December 31, 1945, by the chairman of the pension commission, showing that there were 7,810 young Canadians who were fit enough to be enlisted in the forces and taken overseas, who eventually were brought back and discharged as medically unfit and yet were not granted any pension entitlement because of a pre-enlistment condition. They were not even granted anything for aggravation by service. I repeat that figure-7,810.
The figure for those who served only in Canada was 54,207. That number of young Canadians enlisted in the forces, served in Canada only, were discharged as medically unfit, and yet were not entitled to any pension either for original disability or for aggravation, because they were said to have a preenlistment condition.
There is something wrong there either with the law or with the doctors. All these men were carefully examined, far more carefully examined in this war than those of us were who served in the last war. We, or some of us, "got by" on nearly anything. In this war there was the most careful examination. Yet we find that, after men have been examined and enrolled, and have served for years, another doctor discharges them as medically unfit, and a third group of doctors, working under the pension commission, say, "Well, they had a pre-enlistment condition; presumably they were sick before they ever got in the army, or they were going to'be sick anyway, and that is that, and they are not entitled to any pension." These men are being ruled out or, in some cases, granted only a partial pension, on the ground that the condition originated before enlistment.
Mr. Speaker, that is an injustice which should be remedied, and it should be remedied in this bill. I believe that could be done by inserting in the Pension Act a new provision to this general effect-I am not giving the exact wording-which I think should be covered by a new section of the act:
That there shall be a presumption that a man's condition as recorded on admission to service was in fact his condition at that time and that any subsequent deterioration was due to his service.
In other words, it shall be presumed that if he was enrolled as fit he was actually fit, and that if, during his service, his physical condition deteriorates the state must show that such deterioration was not due to his service; otherwise he would be entitled to some pension.
That suggestion was made before the special committee. As the hon. member for Acadia has said, it was considered at some length, and finally, on motion of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), an amendment to the act was recommended. Hon. members will find it in the proceedings of the committee on May 31, 1946. The hon. member for Nanaimo moved that there be put in the act a new section reading as follows:
62A. There shall be a presumption that an applicant's condition as recorded on his acceptance as a member of the forces was in fact his
Pension Act

condition at that time and that any subsequent deterioration during service was due to such service.
Then, at the suggestion of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), a proviso was added, worded as follows: subject to the provisions of paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section 111 of this act.
That proviso covers the case where a man's condition was obvious on his admission to the service; in other words, if he had a wooden leg and had been able to get by the doctor even with that wooden leg! Or where he had wilfully concealed his condition, or where his condition had been recorded on another medical examination, say a civilian medical examination, prior to his enlistment. That amendment was adopted unanimously by the special committee on veterans affairs.
But then the government came in, a week later, and said, "We are not willing to accept that amendment." I think the reason they did so was that the pension commission did not like it. The minister showed no particular antagonism to the amendment; I believe he would have been willing to let it go into the bill. That was on June 7, and after we had passed all the sections of a draft bill. I moved that the draft bill be reported to the house, but the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch) moved an amendment, and later on the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Winters) moved other amendments, the effect of which was to change that draft bill into the form that the government wanted. So that the bill as it comes before the house to-day is not the bill which was really recommended by the members of the veterans committee when they were considering it section by section.
The change made in regard to this preenlistment condition was that the new section was struck out, and to take its place two words were added to what is known as "the benefit of the doubt" section, section 62. The words added were "and presumptions", and putting them in section 62 meant nothing at all. So I repeat my suggestion to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) that, when this bill goes into committee, he allow it to be amended to include a new section, and I intend to move such a section, No. 63A-there has been some change in the numbering-to this effect:
63A. In respect of an application for entitlement to pension arising out of world war II there shall be a presumption that the condition of the member of the forces as recorded on his acceptance was in fact his condition at that time and that any subsequent deterioration during service was due to such service; subject to the provisos contained in paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section 11 of this act.

I will give the minister a copy of the proposed change when I am through.
Another improvement which could be made at this time, without waiting until next year, is to give the dependents' board of trustees power to help out the family of a veteran. As hon. members know, that board was set up under the Department of National Defence- it is not under the Department of Veterans Affairs at all, even at the present time-and was provided with funds so that the case of a needy family could be met. The board has done splendid work. I know that in the city of Vancouver many families have been helped in that way who otherwise would have had no helping hand at all. I suggest to the house that for the next year or two that dependents' board of trustees be provided with funds to help the families of veterans; for example, the family of a veteran who cannot qualify Tor pension and yet in whose family there will be great suffering without such assistance. The board would not have to carry on indefinitely; it is simply a suggestion for the immediate post-war period.
When I opened my speech this afternoon I mentioned that we had an obligation to absorb these young men and women into the life of the nation. I do not intend to go very far along that line to-day because there are other bills which deal with that obligation. But there are two matters which will not come up under other bills; they are contained in the recommendations which have been made by the committee. The first has to do with the civil service preference. The committee recommended in its final report:
That the present civil service preference for disabled veterans and veterans who served overseas be extended to cover all employment, both temporary and permanent, by the House of Commons-
That means by us, right here; it means on our own front doorstep.
-and by dominion government agencies inclusive of crown companies.
The civil service preference at the present time applies only to those who come under the Civil Service Act. The Secretary of State (Mr. Martin) can correct me, but I should think that would be perhaps only half or two-thirds of the total number of civil servants. In any event, there are thousands of government positions that are not subject to the veteran's preference. I suggest that, without further delay, provision should be made by the government to extend the preference to all dominion government agencies, including these new crown companies that are being set up.
The importance of such a move is that people on the outside, ordinary businessmen,

Pension Act
will follow the example set by the government. If the government has a crown company which does not give preference to veterans, then the man doing business with that company, or who knows of its activities, will say, "Why do I have to give a preference to veterans when this government company is not giving it?" And provincial governments are apt to do the same. They will say, "The dominion government does not give a preference. These men served1 under the dominion and the dominion will not give them a preference; why should we?" It weakens the position of the veteran all across Canada, and therefore I appeal to the government to take action to extend this preference, and to take that action quickly.
The other recommendation of the committee to which I would refer is the following:
That the government consider the extension of priorities in the purchase of surplus war assets to veterans on certification by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Just within the last day or two another department of government, the Department of Reconstruction and Supply, has said that there is to be no more preference to veterans in the purchase of cars and trucks because you cannot trust them-they will go and make a deal with some civilian and there will be a lot of under-the-table business carried on. Therefore the priority must go.
That is not good enough. The committee on veterans affairs went into the whole question carefully. We say that where a veteran needs a truck or a car in order to become reestablished, and gets a certificate from the veterans affairs department that such is the case, then he should receive priority; and I would urge the government to see that a change is made along that line.
In conclusion, I have dealt to-day primarily with the Pension Act; with the men and women who have been disabled and the dependents of those who have not come back. This house was elected in June, 1945, just a little over a year ago, when Canada was still at war in the Pacific, it is true, but the fighting in Europe had ended and it was obvious that Japan could not hold out longer. Every member elected to this house knew, and the Canadian people knew, that to this House of Commons would be entrusted the writing of laws to protect those who had been disabled, and the dependents of the fallen; and no matter what the members of the house do, no matter what the Canadian people do, they can never adequately repay their fellow Canadians who have suffered. But a genuine
attempt to do so should be our first concern, not only in this post-war session, but throughout the whole life of the present parliament.


Mr. J. H. MATTHEWS (Kootenay East):: I have listened this afternoon with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bentley), the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), and the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green); and, while Listening to those remarks, I was thinking of the last session of parliament, prior to prorogation, when the report of the veterans committee was presented to the house. If I remember rightly, there was little discussion of. or comment on the report because we felt in the house that that committee had done its work thoroughly and well and that the country generally was in favour of being generous to those who had served Canada so splendidly in its wars.
Now again, through this session, a committee of the house has been studying veterans affairs, and again its report is coming before the house in the form of the present bills.
I have not had the privilege of serving- on that committee, although I was a veteran of the first great war, but I discovered that even if I had been a member of the committee I would not have been permitted to bring individual cases on the floor of the committee. Those have been ruled out, and it seems to me that this is the place where some individual cases should be dealt with when we are considering the principles of the pension bill.
The first case I wish to refer to is that of a Canadian soldier, at least a soldier who fought for Canada in the great war of 1914-18, who was severely wounded in that war and was subsequently pensioned for his disability. Later on, when he tried to go out and do a little for himself to add to his pension, it was agreeable to the pension commission that he should do so, and a promise was made that if he found he could not get along his pension would be reinstated to its original sum. In the meantime, this young man goes down to live in the United States and then discovers that originally he was a United States citizen. He has not had his pension reinstated to its original sum, and in spite of all his appeals he has been turned down. I have taken the matter up with the pension commission, and they inform me that there are fourteen or fifteen bulky files dealing with this particular case. I am not concerned about how many files they have; if an injustice has been done to a soldier who fought for Canada, the matter of the number of files should not enter into the case.
Pension Act

Second, the immigration officials refused to allow this man to come to Canada. All he asks is that he be allowed to come to Canada, go before a medical board and have a rediagnosis of his case. "Oh, no",.they said, "we cannot let this man into Canada at all. He is not a Canadian citizen and if we did let him in he is liable to become a public charge on Canada."
When a man is willing to hazard his life and fight for Canada and to be wounded in that service, to my mind such treatment is hardly good enough. Although the pension commission may say it is a closed case; although the immigration officials may say they will not let this man come in, I still feel there is one man who in his breast has a rankling sense of injustice against Canada. To-day all that he asks is to be given a square deal.
The second case that I wish to deal with-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Did my hon. friend ever bring that case to my personal attention?


James Herbert Matthews: Yes, I did, and it was through the minister's efforts that I went before the pension commission.,
The second case that I wish to deal with is that of a man from my own constituency. This man enlisted in Cranbrook on June 13, 1940. Two days later he was placed on a troop train bound for Vancouver. While he was travelling on the train, he suffered an accident, a stone came rolling down the mountainside, smashed through the car window and struck the man on the head. As a result of these injuries, he is suffering from a nervous condition, defective hearing in the left ear with perforation of the eardrum, and defective vision of the left eye. This man has been discharged without a pension. When he went before the appeal board of the Canadian pension commission on June 19, 1942, his case was outlawed. He was told that he was suffering from pre-enlistment conditions. I should like to read for the record a statement made by the doctor who examined this man when he enlisted and when he was discharged. It reads as follows:
Cranbrook, British Columbia, April 16, 1941.
To whom it may concern:
To those interested, I examined this man when he enlisted, and according to the records which we have there was nothing to show that this man had any of the following:
1.	Nervous condition.
2.	Defective hearing, left ear with perforated eardrum.
3.	Defective vision, left eye.
The above are conditions for which this man was discharged from the army. I feel that these conditions are largely due to the accident which occurred while this man was en route to the coast from Cranbrook.
Signed Melville J. Swartz, M.D.

Here is a case, Mr. Speaker-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Has my friend ever seen the real file on that case?
Mr. MiATTHEWS (Kootenay East): Yes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall have it submitted to the 'committee on veterans affairs and I shall abide by their judgment. The statement my hon. friend is making is abso-lutety unjustified and unwarranted.


Walter Adam Tucker: May I rise to a point of order. I know the hon. member for Kootenay East wants to be fair; I know he wants to do what is right in behalf of the veterans, but it is written into the Pension Act-


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the point of order?


Walter Adam Tucker: I shall come to that in a moment if the hon. member will permit me.
An lion. MEMBER: Do not make speeches.


Walter Adam Tucker: It is written into the Pension Act that the pension commission has the right to adjudicate these cases. That has never been questioned in any way in our committee or in any veterans legislation. When the pension commission rules on these individual cases it is the same as when a court makes a decision. That principle is not being attacked in any way by this bill. If hon. members are to rise in their places and make ex parte statements, then every other hon. member has the same right to do so. Surely my hon. friend would not say that he should do so and that other hon. members who have constituents coming to them and saying that they have decisions which they do not agree with, have not the same right. Surely he would not say that everyone has not the same right. If that right were exercised we would not get this pension bill through until next month. I ask the hon. member to be fair with the house, with the committee, and with the veterans of the country. He is trying to do something which he knows himself would prevent this bill from going through, if other hon. members did the same thing. In all earnestness, I ask him not to press these individual cases.


James Herbert Matthews: Where is the point of order?


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: You would not understand it.


James Herbert Matthews: My hon. friend would.


James Horace King: I would call the hon. member's attention to the preamble to the

Pension Act
second reading of the bill. He well knows that on second reading only the principle of the bill should be discussed.


James Herbert Matthews: I beg your pardon; it is the principle of the bill that I am discussing.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Herbert Matthews: I have not had the privilege of appearing before the veterans committee.


Walter Adam Tucker: Did the hon. member ask for it?


James Herbert Matthews: The ruling of the veterans committee was that individual cases would not be dealt with.


Walter Adam Tucker: Did the hon. member ask for it? He knows that we are discussing the principle of the bill.


James Horace King: Order. I would draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that we are on second reading of the bill. The right place to carry on discussion between members is when the bill is in committee.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I know of this case, and it is well known all over British Columbia.


James Herbert Matthews: If I heard the minister aright he said that he knew of this case and that it is known all over British Columbia.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


James Herbert Matthews: As a member of parliament, I am pleading on behalf of a member of my constituency. I may be a new member of the house, and I may not be aware of all the circumstances under which these things are dealt with, but I was under the impression that it was my right and my privilege to speak on this case this afternoon. I want to proceed this much farther. The crown has sued the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in this particular case.


James Horace King: I say to the hon. member that under the rules of the house he will have an opportunity to discuss any case in which he is interested as long as it is relevant to the bill which is before the house. But the right place to do so is in committee of the whole. I would suggest to the hon. member that he discuss only the principle of the bill. If he wishes to go into details of the bill the right place to do so is in committee.


James Herbert Matthews: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In accordance with your
ruling, I shall not continue farther, but I assure you that I shall bring the matter up at the proper moment.


Walter Adam Tucker: With the permission of the house, I should like to say-


Joseph William Burton: The hon. member has already spoken.


Walter Adam Tucker: I do not want to speak on this question, but I shall make an observation. Every hon. member knows that the commission has full jurisdiction in these matters. The minister has no right to overrule the commission; it has full jurisdiction. To try to get a suggestion from the minister that he will overrule the commission is asking him to assume something which parliament has denied him. I urge the hon. member not to bring up individual cases in this discussion. Every hon. member knows that they have dozens of cases which have been brought to their attention. If the hon. member brings up individual cases there will be the feeling that other hon. members should do the same thing. I say this as a matter of getting the bill through without having these cases threshed out on the floor of the house where there is no power to deal with them. Because of that, I ask the hon. member not to press these individual cases.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: I rise to a point of order. I suggest to the hon. member who has just spoken that it is always the privilege of any hon. member of parliament to bring before the house anything which his conscience tells him should be brought up there.


Walter Adam Tucker: I ask him not to do that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will my hon. friend grant me the privilege of showing him the personal file in regard to this case?


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Yes.


George Hugh Castleden: On a point of order, I should like to point out that during debate this afternoon the hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot) dealt at considerable length with a case and there was no objection.


James Horace King: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


George Hugh Castleden: No; I wish to speak on this matter. What is the policy of the government on the matter of pensions with regard to a case-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We are not in committee. The Speaker is in the chair.


George Hugh Castleden: I am discussing the principle. Let us presume that a man suffering from nervous disorders is sent back to
Pension Act

Canada. We will say that these nervous disorders are the result of intensive training in Britain.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That should be
brought up in committee.


James Horace King: The hon. member knows that on second reading he cannot question the minister or his parliamentary assistant. That should be done in committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill -read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-" Department."
James Herbert Matthews: A few moments ago I brought to the attention of the house a case in which I am very much interested. The Minister of Veterans Affairs intimated that he has the file, which he would be pleased to show me. I want to accept his invitation, and to tell the minister I shall be glad to see it at any time.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, certainly.


James Herbert Matthews: In the meantime, I know the man; and- I know that once the crown has sued the Canadian Pacific Railway Company because of injuries sustained by a soldier in the crown's service and has accepted the sum of S300 from that company in settlement, because that is the answer given to a question which was placed on the order paper, then the crown must accept some responsibility to the soldier who was injured. If I know anything at all of logic that holds true.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I wish my hon. friend would reserve judgment until he reads the file and finds out all the conditions surrounding the matter.


James Herbert Matthews: I think this man has a claim for a pension. Failing that, if his case cannot be reviewed by the pension commission, I want to ask here in this House of Commons for permission from the crown, through the Attorney General, to sue the crown on this man's behalf.


George Alexander Cruickshank: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, am I to understand that any man, I do'not care whether he is a member of parliament or a private individual, has the right to see any soldier's file; that some man who was afraid to fight for his country can go and see the file of a man who did fight?


James Herbert Matthews: I
want to object to that phrase, "a man who is afraid to fight for his country." I shall not accept it as applying to any constituent of mine. This man enlisted in His Majesty's service.


George Alexander Cruickshank: If you will sit down you will find out that I am not referring to your man at all. I am merely asking if any private individual or -anyone else has the right to see a soldier's file. I think the leader of your party will agree with the point I am bringing up. Do not sound off until you understand what it is all about. Has any individual the right to see a soldier's file.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding):: The Minister of Veterans Affairs made that proposal to the hon. member.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I do not think the minister had any rignt to do so.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, yes; the minister has every right in a case like this. Ordinarily the hon. member is quite correct; a soldier's file cannot be seen except with the permission of a minister of the crown.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Then may I ask another question? I presume that is in confidence, is it? In other words, if a member can ask the minister to see a file, and the minister shows it to- him, can he go to some political newspaper and give the contents of a man's private file to the public? I doubt it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Where there is deliberate misrepresentation in regard to conditions in any particular case, which imputes injustice to the department, the minister is entitled to show the file.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Well, I should like to ask another question. I am not disputing the minister's statement, but I am trying to protect the interests of the private soldier. I -think, if a man has committed deliberate misrepresentation it is the duty of the department to- prosecute him, rather than to pass around the information.


Mr. MATTHEWS (Kooteney East):: I am not yet clear as to what is to be done in this particular case in regard to which I am appealing to-day. Can it be reopened by the pension commission?


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Chairman, if I may answer the question- asked, by the hon. member


James Herbert Matthews: I have not yet finished asking it.


Walter Adam Tucker: The hon. member wants to know -what can be done. The law, the Pension Act, definitely provides what can be done. It definitely states that the pension commission has full jurisdiction in the matter, the same as any court of law, and that it must interpret the facts and the law. That is in the

Pension Act
statute. When the commission comes to a decision, neither the minister nor this house has any right to interfere with its jurisdiction. That right has been conferred upon the commission, and I am sure no soldier organization would want to change the law so that the judgment of the commission could be interfered with by any member of parliament or any member of the government. When the hon. member asks whether the minister will undertake to interfere with the jurisdiction of the pension commission, the answer must be that he has no right to do so, under a statute of this country. Surely that is an answer to the hon. member.


Mr. COLDWELL:: But it does not prevent a member of this house from rising in his place and airing what he considers to be an injustice. I should like to say something with regard to the file. I agree with the hon. member for Fraser Valley, but I think, when a member of parliament is invited to see a soldier's file, that member is placed upon his honour to exercise his responsibility.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Hear, hear.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I agree.


Major James William Coldwell: That is always done, as far as 'I know.
Mr. BLiACKMORE: Unless a member has a right to look at a file, how can he bring an injustice to the attention of the house?


Walter Adam Tucker: I was going to say that every hon. member who has had anything to do with the pension commission knows that its chairman is ready to go to almost any lengths to discuss any case which any hon. member thinks has not been dealt with fairly or justly. I have never known a public servant more anxious to go into all the facts in order to satisfy a member of parliament that justice has been done. Instead) of discussing this matter on the floor of the house, where hundreds of other cases might just as properly be brought up, which would delay the passing of this legislation, I would appeal to the hon. member to take his case to the chairman of the pension commission.. There I guarantee that the file will be laid before him, and when he looks at the file and has a chance to see both sides I am sure he will be fully satisfied. I ask him to take up the matter with the board that has jurisdiction, instead of bringing it up on the floor of this house. The hon. gentleman mentioned another hon. member. If the hon. gentleman presents individual cases, I know of others which may be brought up by other hon. members; and if each hon. gentleman exercises the right which
the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar says is the right of his colleague-, we may as well resign ourselves to the fact that this single bill will take up at least two weeks.
I make this appeal for this reason. We had wonderful cooperation in the committee, and our desire was to try to get this legislation through within a reasonable time. The hope was that anything about which we could not do anything in this parliament would not be discussed at any length at this time. Of course the hon. member is not bound by that understanding, but I suggest to him that the representative of his party on the steering committee entirely agreed with that attitude and, I know, is anxious that it should be carried out, in order to get this legislation through in the interests of the soldiers.


Gordon Graydon: May I rise on a point of order? As a -member who has been in the house f-or nearly eleven years, I am interested in the point raised by the hon. member for Fraser Valley. I think that is a pretty important point; and I do not believe the solution is that which has been suggested by the minister or by those who have spoken. I do not think any member of the government or any member of parliament would stand for a moment for any ordinary, private member of the house snooping in the files of -men who have served overseas, or given any other service. But that is not the point. In each of these cases where files have been opened to a private member of the house, I believe it has always been done under this circumstance, which I think must be -borne in mind; that is, that the man asking for the privilege of looking at the file is in a sense the agen-t of the man whose file it is. I do not think I have any right to go to a man's file unless I am representing him; I do not think I have any right to go into somebody else's file just to find out something, even though I am a member of parliament. However, I think there is perfect justification-, for the hon. member for Kootenay East for instance, who is putting forward a man's case, to go to that man's file. The minister should feel at liberty to open up that file, because there is no question then of confidentiality being offended in any way, shape or form.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is what I said.


Gordon Graydon: Perhaps it was my fault, but I was not quite clear as to the minister's explanation-.


Mr. MUTCH:: It has been the practice over a period of years for most members who wish to see the file of a soldier to have his written

Food and Agriculture Conference
permission. I have seen scores if not hundreds of files, and I have had the permission every time. I doubt if I have ever seen one without having permission of the soldier.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, August 1, 1946