1946-06-28

CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, among the bills to which royal assent was given yesterday afternoon was the act respecting Canadian citizenship. The government has felt that hon. members would no doubt like to have this symbol of nationhood associated with the seventy-ninth anniversary of confederation, which comes on Monday next.
The government has therefore decided to have the bill proclaimed on July 1 of this year. I might say however that while the bill will be proclaimed on that day, its provisions will not go into effect until January 1, 1947. A number of technical matters have to be worked out in connection with the provisions of the bill, and as this cannot be done either here or in our offices abroad in that brief space of time, it has seemed appropriate to fix January 1, 1947, as the date upon which the provisions of the act will come into force.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, my attention has been drawn to an article appearing in the issue of the Financial Post, dated June 29, and which is headed, "Canada 'Another Belgium' in U.S. Air Bases Proposal? Hear Washington Insists Dominion's Northern Frontier be Fortified-'Atomic Age Maginot Line' is Feared". This wholly misleading article contains so many serious inaccuracies that I am bound to take exception to it in the strongest terms. Amongst other things the article alleges that a virtual ultimatum from the United States calling on Canada to fortify her northern frontier is reported to have hastened my return from England this month.
It- is, of course, absurd to imagine that the government of the United States would present anything that could, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as an ultimatum, and there is no foundation whatever for this allegation. It is also untrue, as claimed in the article, that the United States government has

Veterans Affairs-Women's Services
presented a plan for northern air bases. In view of what I have said, I perhaps need hardly add that my return from the United Kingdom was in no way influenced by any such imagined developments.
It is a fact, of course, that the permanent joint board on defence is charged with studying the defences of North America which includes our northern frontiers. The extent to which their vulnerability may or may not have been increased by reason of technological developments in recent years, and the measures which should be adopted for their protection are proper subjects of study by the board. The board is therefore examining them, and would be remiss in its duties if it did not.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. A. TUCKER (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affaire) moved the second reading of bill No. 200, respecting benefits for persons who served in the Women's royal naval services and the South African military nursing service.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. GILLIS:: I was of the opinion that all the auxiliary services were to be brought within the scope of existing legislation for the benefit of veterans and that this matter is now in the hands of a subcommittee of the veterans affairs committee. I understood it was intended to bring in an all-inclusive bill to cover all auxiliary services. Why is it that this bill is introduced while the subcommittee is studying the matter?


Mr. TUCKER:: What the bon. member
has said is correct; the intention is to try to embody in one, bill whatever has to be done in regard to those who were not actually members of the armed services. However, these personnel are in a slightly different position. They were deemed to be members of the armed services until it was found that the South African military nursing service was not a part of the armed services of that country and because of that technicality the members of that service were not entitled to the benefits they would have been entitled to had they been members of the armed services. The hon. member will remember that last session the veterans affairs committee recommended that an order in council be passed giving them 
those rights, and it was of course understood that a bill would be introduced to embody those rights in legislation by parliament.
With regard to the women's royal naval service personnel, it was found that because of a naval rule of the United Kingdom these women could not be considered as members of the armed services as were the members of the women's auxiliary air force and the women's branch of the British army. These particular women therefore were not able to get the benefits of our legislation which extended to those who had joined His Majesty's forces other than Canadian, and the bill is to take care of this situation. As I explained at the resolution stage, it is the intention to try to get legislation before the committee and have a recommendation from the committee this session if possible in connection with the other groups not actually members of the armed forces.


Clarence Gillis: I am quite satisfied with the bill. I was simply calling attention to the fact that the case of the women who served with the V.A.D., the Red Cross and other auxiliary services was being considered by the veterans affaire committee. I did not want the impression to get abroad that we were granting rights to only two classes of women who had served and were neglecting others Who deserve consideration. I want to make it clear that the subcommittee of the veterans affairs committee is now considering an allinclusive bill which will include the other categories.


Mr. MUTCH:: As chairman of the subcommittee which is considering other civilian personnel with respect to war service benefits, I should like to try to make it clear why these two groups are being considered now. The committee recommended that an order in council be passed to assure these benefits to these women. I think the hon. gentleman who has just spoken will remember that the matters referred to the subcommittee had to do with those who had not yet been granted any rights. The duty of the subcommittee is to recommend to the main committee such benefits as they can agree upon. There is no question at all of the others being ignored; their position has been considered and is being seriously considered, and in the course of time a report will be made to the main committee.


Mr. CHURCH:: I agree with the principle of this bill dealing with the South African nursing service and the women's royal naval services, but there is one question I should like to ask. Is the committee considering the provision of nursing services which are so

Soldier Settlement
badly needed for soldiers in their homes, and in civilian hospitals? The former hon. member for Parkdale pointed out when he was here that even at Sunnybrook nursing services may later have to be used to aid soldier families. I was on the board of the Toronto general hospital for years and I know that recently they have had to close down one or two floors because of the scarcity of nurses. Is anything being done to provide nursing services for soldiers and their families?


Walter Adam Tucker: We have so much on the agenda that if I were to try to deal with it all it would take the whole of the afternoon. As has been explained, we have eleven bills still to be reported to the house. I think the question the hon. member asked would come more properly under the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare.


Thomas Langton Church: We had a large meeting in Maple Leaf Gardens, Toronto, recently attended by several thousand soldiers who complained that they cannot get housing, nurses or anything. I would like to see the committee do something to provide the services and accommodation which the soldiers need.


Mr. HAZEN:: Was this bill considered by the veterans affairs committee? I was not a member of the committee, and I do not know what the procedure was.


Walter Adam Tucker: It was considered by the veterans affairs committee and recommended -I hesitate to say unanimously, but I believe it was unanimously-to the house in exactly the form in which it appears to-day.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
On section 5-P.C. 6938 revoked.
Mr. CASTLEDEN:: Are benefits given
under any acts to the Canadian Wrens which are not made available to the women's royal naval services and the South African military nursing service?


Walter Adam Tucker: This bill gives the same rights to these Canadian girls as they would have had if they had been men and had gone into any of His Majesty's forces other than the Canadian forces. In other words it brings the rights of those who were domiciled in Canada when they went into these services and are now domiciled and resident in Canada up to the same level which they would have enjoyed had they gone into the Canadian forces.


Mr. CASE:: Do the members of these forces receive the same benefits under this bill as they received under P.C. 6938?


Walter Adam Tucker: They receive exactly the same benefits.


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


[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. A. TUCKER (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved the second reading of bill No. 199, to amend the Soldier Settlement Act.
Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is good business to pass this bill in its present form. We have discussed this subject in the house for quite a number of years, and I think most of the members have admitted that we are not giving a square deal to our old veterans of the last war who settled on the land.
We had a discussion in the house in October last, in which more than twenty members took part, of a resolution to grant clear title to those who were settled on the land at the end of March, 1944, and only two or three members opposed that resolution. We are spending vast sums of money trying to be fair to people of other countries and improve their standard of living, and I think it would be very good business for us to begin at home. The amount required to grant clear title is $7,715,954.01. which is less than we spent on half a day of war. Divide the total up among the people of Canada andl it would mean an assessment of sixty-five cents each. After the budget news we had last night I do not think the people would be shocked if even at this late date we passed this bill with an amendment to give these old veterans at least something approaching a square deal. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden):
(a)	Striking out the word "sections" where it appears in the third line and substituting therefor the word "section."
(b)	Adding after the word "where" in the first line of the section the words, "on March 31 1944."
(c)	Striking out subsections (d) (e) and (f) of section 76.
(d)	Striking out section 77 and substituting the following as subsection (d):
_ "The government shall cancel all remaining indebtedness on account of the purchase agreement, and shall render to the persons so indebted full title to the said land," so that the bill will now read:
1. The Soldier Settlement Act, chapter one hundred and eighty-eight of the revised statutes of Canada; 1927, is amended by adding thereto the following section:
76. In any case where at March 31, 1944,
(a) a person is indebted in respect of any agreement made under this act;
Soldier Settlement

(b) a person has not abandoned his land;
(e)	the agreement has not been terminated, rescinded or assigned;
(d) the government shall cancel all remaining indebtedness on account of the purchase agreement. and shall render to the persons so indebted full title to the said land.


Walter Adam Tucker: I suggest to Your Honour that the amendment is out of order in that it would impose a charge on the public revenue. Furthermore this is the first time that I have ever heard of a motion being made to amend a bill on the second reading. I submit that on both these grounds the amendment is not in accordance with the rules. My motion was that the bill he now read a second time. The effect of the amendment would be to substitute an entirely new bill altogether. It is in effect a negation of the motion for second reading. I submit that the amendment is out of order.


George Hugh Castleden: Speaking to the point of order, the first part of my hon. friend's argument may or may not be valid. The money that might be collected from the settlers would naturally come into the public revenue, but against that there is the charge of collecting the indebtedness, and it is conceivable that the cost of collection might easily equal the revenue received. The amendment if passed would bring justice to men who have been settled on their lands so long that they are now entitled to them. As to the second point, if you, Mr. Speaker, rule that this is the wrong place to move this amendment, we should be pleased to move it in committee of the whole.


Mr. HAN SELL:: On the point of order as to the amendment involving expenditure of money, that cannot possibly be so, because the money has not yet been collected to be spent, and all that is proposed in the amendment is to give clear title. If this were an amendment directly involving the expenditure of money-


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: You will save money on administration.


Mr. HANSELL:: -I could understand it, but giving them a clear title does not involve the spending of money at all. They pay for the title themselves. They have paid already.


Mr. SPEAKER:: If the hon. member who moved this amendment will look at Beauchesne, third edition, article 658, he will see that-
A motion opposing the second reading of a bill must not anticipate amendments which may be moved in committee. Alterations which may be effected by amending the clauses of the bill cannot be moved on the second reading.

So I declare that the amendment of the hon. member is out of order.


Robert Fair: May I ask one question? Will it be in order to move the amendment in committee?


James Horace King: It will be the privilege of the hon. member to present his amendment when the house is in committee on the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Redirction of interest rate in case of a settler, veteran of two wars.
Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Chairman, since this resolution was considered the other day I have been looking up the records of the house in the last few years. I take it that the committee must be an impartial committee. I believed it was; I visited it the other day, but I was persuaded that there must be something else behind it. We know what happened after the last war when soldiers went on the land. I am not blaming now any one government, because it seems to me that as regards treatment of the soldiers they are all alike. That is one of the reasons I came here in the first place; I think I made a mistake in coming here at all. By way of contrast, consider what this country has done for the builders of the trans-Canada railways-the C.P.R., the C.N.R., the Grand Trunk Pacific-the Mackenzie and Mann system. What they received from this country, including the grants of land, the numerous sections along the lines of railway handed to them as a favour, without any consideration for the taxpayer at all, runs into millions of acres on the broken and unbroken rights of way of each.
Then consider what we have done for the builders of character over Canada from the time immemorial-the rural school teachers engaged to teach in our country schools, who are left to starve on $300 a year. Finally, consider how the soldiers have been treated. I have seen a good many ex-service men who were stationed during the war at the Canadian national exhibition grounds in Toronto. Large numbers of them were collected at a sort of central Canada concentration camp for the whole of the west and all Canada. These men came from as far east as Halifax and as far west as Vancouver. I have talked to them. Some came in to see me, some wrote me letters, some of the men who were in this plight served in the last war and some are veterans of this war. I consider that on the question of soldier settlement some of them have received pretty shabby treatment. I

Soldier Settlement
have the utmost respect for this committee of veterans and for the various governments which have had to deal with these problems, because we have to consider also the taxpayer, but I want to draw attention to the position of a large body of people who, except for what the minister did in 1945, which applied to only a few, have never got so much as a snap of the finger by way of consideration from any government since the time when, enrolled in the Northwest Field Force, 1885, they marched across lake Superior in the time of the Riel rebellion. Some of them were Haligonians; there was a large contingent from the midland district, from Trenton, and neighbouring cities and towns; there were the Royal Grenadiers, and in Toronto the Governor General's bodyguard, the battalion commanded by that great police magistrate, the late Colonel Denison, one of the pioneers of this country, the Queen's Own, and many other units.
Where are these men to-day? They never got a cent. I admit that they were given a grant of land which they never saw and was of no use to them. The soldier land settlement schemes began, in fact, at the time of the northwest rebellion in 1885. Some of these men received grants of land in the northwest; some, up in new Ontario, and half of them never saw their land. They were in their day the backbone of the present Canadian militia. They and their children served in the South African war and they or their children and grandchildren served in the two great wars which followed it. How were they treated? As to old age pensions they were subjected to the means test-and it is very well named; it is a mean thing; it is the meanest and most contemptible thing I have ever known. In connection with the case I mentioned the other day to the committee, what did they do? They simply did nothing, and I made up my mind that I would speak in this chamber when this particular bill came up, because if this is the way the veterans committee conducts its affairs, the remnant of these old soldiers-nearly all of them are gone now, I think there are only three or four thousand left-will get scant consideration. As a matter of fact they never got a nickel out of parliament. They never even received uniforms. All they got was $6 a year for attending drills in the militia, and they had to put the money, in 1881 and 1885, in the company funds. The way they have been treated since is shabby and contemptible.
I commend the action of the hon. member for Battle River. I do not often agree with some of the views of the hon. gentlemen of 63260-189
his group, but there is one thing to be said for them: they stand for the underdog and they support the mother country first, last and all the time; it is not with their consent that the Suez canal will be given away or India abandoned and the dominions separated from the empire.
I repeat that I am disappointed with the present bill. I believe it should be referred back to the committee to see if they cannot make a more liberal recommendation. I was surprised to some extent by what occurred when I attended a meeting of the committee the other day. They heard what I had to say; the chairman called me his "colleague," and I am a colleague of his. I have no antagonism to anybody. But I do repeat that these 1885 veterans have got shabby treatment from all the governments. I was accused away back in 1915, 1916 and 1917 of attacking my own party when it was in power, and I admit that when I saw the shabby treatment the veterans were getting I protested against the government of which I was a supporter. When I saw the disgraceful hospital conditions that prevailed at the time of the terrible influenza epidemic, when men were forced to live out in tents in cold and rainy weather. I attacked my own party, who were then in office. I know a good many of these land settlement soldiers; I come in contact with many of them every day, and I have yet to see a returned man who has made anything out of it.
The night before last there was a big parade of soldiers to the Maple Leaf Gardens in Toronto. I was not there, because members of parliament from Toronto cannot very well be there and here at the same time. There was a tremendous torchlight procession, and the men were discussing the housing shortage for veterans, the very question that I am now dealing with. They had great banners and they marched up to the Maple Leaf Gardens where they hoisted their banners, and I saw a report in the newspapers that a Scottish aider-man, John Innes, and' acting Mayor McCallum and Controller McKellar were among those present. The member for Davenport was not able to be there but he was represented by another Scotsman, John Innes. Well, these men wanted to know what the government was going to do about a number of things. They wanted to know something about housing; they wanted to know what was going to be done for those who were coming home; they wanted to know what plans the government had for adequate hospitalization of the men, and for nurses. I am glad I did not have to answer for all this. They spoke the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth as to

Soldier Settlement

'conditions under which the veterans have to live to-day, and those conditions are certainly intolerable.
I am not blaming the chairman of the veterans affairs committee. I have linked up in the past all governments with the shameful treatment that has been handed out to our soldiers. I have known something about all the governments we have had; I have known some of them a long time, too long as a matter of fact; and I know that the soldiers get-nothing much out of them. Last June there was a gathering of veterans of the 1885 Northwest force from all parts of Canada, about 217 of them, many of them well up in years, and they came to Toronto for a final dinner. What did they get? Nothing. The committee before whom I appeared on June 11 have as yet not recommended anything for them. I know the reason, and some day I will state it very emphatically and clearly in this house. Some day, right in this chamber, I am going to tell why the veterans of the northwest rebellion never got any direct aid except a little under an order in council in 1944-45, for which few could qualify. I have seen their wives and children actually passing the hat. I am sorry to have to say this, but it is the truth. Why should this state of affairs go on when we have a. veterans affairs committee that might be doing something for the veterans?
When I visited the committee I was greatly surprised, and I could then, realize fully the truth of what has been said so often by two of the best soldiers of our country, two Victoria Cross men sitting here modestly, and raising their voices all the time on behalf of the veterans. I have no doubt that what they say is quite correct. I think the veterans committee ought to do something for these men, who went on the land after world war I, and for that reason I support the recommendation that has been made in regard to the quit claim deed-. I have listened to what has been said not only by members of the house and members of the committee but by those who support the government, and I am ready to admit that the government have done a great deal for the veterans in the way of pensions and in other directions. What they have done in that regard is laudable, and in some respects it leads other countries. I was in hopes therefore that when I went to the committee I would see them making an earnest effort to redress the grievances of the men. That is what the veterans affairs committee is for, to redress the grievances of veterans not only of this war, not only of the last war, but of every other war in which Canadians have fought for their country. The Canadian people do not expect this parliament to act simply as a dead-beat in relation to the men who gave

up everything and went overseas in the last war, or the men who took part in the Fenian raid, in the South African war and in the northwest rebellion. At that time they marched along the shore of lake Superior in the depth of winter to save that land from dislocation. They had to live on hard-tack, and they got nothing out of it. They bought their own uniforms and did not receive a nickel. The people are not going to put up with this sort of thing much longer. The government can vote a billion and a half in civil estimates. We all heard the speech delivered by the Minister of Finance last night. When we consider these things, it is about time that private members got up and spoke on behalf the just grievances of the soldiers.
I believe in the sincerity of the present minister, who has done so much, and that of the chairman of the committee. I have no doubt he washes to do the very best 'he can for the men, and so I suggest that the government reconsider the suggestion that has been made in regard to the veterans of the last war who went on the land. I admit what was -done for Mackenzie and Mann by the government that I supported, but the other government and this government did a great deal too. Those people got a hand-out from our various legislatures of millions of acres of land. They were well treated by the province of Manitoba and by other provinces. If the country can do so much for these people, why can we not do something for our own land settlement veterans? The committee would be well advised to reconsider the matter, and I hope that when the minister comes back he will take it into further consideration.


James Arthur Ross: I wish to support what my colleague the member for Broadview (Mr. Church) has said concerning the bill. I trust that the member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) will press his amendment; for I certainly believe that these old soldiers should have further consideration. Speaking on the measure the other day I pointed out what had happened in my own community, where one settler agreed to pay $5,000 for a half section, which was subsequently sold to a man, not a British subject, for less than ten per cent of that figure, and the settler himself was not given an opportunity to repurchase the farm. I told of the excellent brief that had been presented by the executive of the old veterans to the veterans committee in the railway committee room this summer. At that time I questioned some of the officers, and in this morning's mail, as a result of that, I received a letter from one of the old settlers in which he states:

Soldier Settlement
During the recent visit I note that on page 381 of minutes of May 6 you asked Mr. Sibley, our secretary, if he knew of any case where the dollar for dollar was conceded to civilian repurchasers, some being German ex-servicemen who had fought against us.
The chairman will remember that they made this representation in their brief, and when I questioned the witness he said he was not sure, but it was his understanding. My correspondent writes further:
At the time I was down in 1944 I addressed the cabinet, Conservative and Liberal caucuses, and stated flatly that I could provide them with proof of its having been done right in my own district.
This settler was forced to sign a quit claim deed, and the board in turn sold the land to a German ex-serviceman who had fought against us and later had come to this country. Later over the year's when adjustments were made to settlers, granting them a credit of two dollars for every dollar paid, this German settler who had fought against us received the same consideration. He received this consideration because he had come to this country and purchased that settler's farm. This man gives the evidence in a letter, and he also says that he had made the statement publicly before officials of the government of the day. Surely our settlers are entitled to at least as much consideration from the government as German ex-servicemen.
Much has been said about the veterans committee. I do not know whether the public realizes just how difficult our task is at times, because the reestablishment of soldiers involves various departments of government. This morning I received a letter from one of my constituents. He encolsed a copy of a letter which he had received from the wartime prices and) trade board, sugar administrator. The letter reads as follows:
The Wartime Prices and Trade Board Sugar Administration,
Area Sugar Office Power Building,
Mr. E. A. Tate,	Winnipeg, Manitoba
Killarney, Man.
Dear Sir:
That part of your letter dated 12th June, with reference to sugar for use in curing of meats has been referred to this office for attention.
In reply, we would advise that since all industrial sugar users are rationed on a percentage of 1941 usage, during which time you were not in business, it is impossible for us to establish an industrial sugar quota for you.
We regret that present regulations do not allow any deviation from this policy.
This veteran served in the armed forces for between five and six years, four and a half years of which he served overseas. I have sent a copy of all this correspondence to the Minister of Finance under whose jurisdiction the wartime prices and trade board operates. I do not know whether I shall be permitted to 63260-1894
put on Hansard the language he uses in regard to the wartime prices and trade board, but I shall read the letter which he asked me to send to the proper authorities.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, before the hon. member carries out his threat I would ask you to consider whether it is pertinent to the bill now under discussion. The letter has to do with the administration of the wartime prices and trade board regulations.


James Arthur Ross: On the point of order, this matter has to do with the reestablishment of veterans of the recent war.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. The bill before the committee is in regard to the Soldier Settlement Act, which affects soldiers of the first war, and I would ask the hon. member to relate his remarks to the bill.


James Arthur Ross: I was comparing the settlement of soldiers under the bill with the old Soldier Settlement Act. In making adjustment to these soldiers we should be governed by what is being done here. In that sense it is relevant to the discussion. The letter is headed: "Killarney, Man., June 23, 1940."
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I ask for a ruling whether the administration of the wartime prices and trade board regulations can be discussed under this bill.


William Ross Macdonald: I think it is clear that a discussion of the regulations of the wartime prices and trade board would be out of order. I think it is equally out of order to discuss veterans' affairs generally. It was decided previously when the resolution was before the committee that while it was before the committee, and likewise while the bill is before the committee, the committee will discuss matters strictly affecting soldiers who served in the first great war and took land under the Soldier Settlement Act.


James Arthur Ross: Your ruling is that I cannot quote this letter now?


Mr. MITCHELL:: It will keep.


James Arthur Ross: Yes, it will keep for quite a while. Let me say to the minister that the quick-freeze plant is to be operating by July 15. He cannot tell his prospective customers whether he cannot get the materials to operate the plant. If I had been allowed to do so I would have raised the question on the orders of the day. But I did not do that. Veterans cannot be reestablished unless they can get the materials they need. The difficulties of veterans have been aired in the veterans committee-


William Ross Macdonald: Order. Shall the clause carry?
Soldier Settlement


James Arthur Ross: No.
Mr. MITCH'BLL: My hon. friend knows the rules of the house, as pointed out by the Minister of Justice. When an hon. member gets a request such as the one referred to by the hon. member for Souris, he makes a great deal more progress if he goes to the minister concerned instead of spreading it all across ' Hansard. In a large organization such as that which, the Minister of Finance has- under his jurisdiction, hundreds of matters such as the one referred to crop up. That is true of my own department. My hon. friend, who knows the rules of the house, should comply with them.


James Arthur Ross: May I say to the minister that if he had been listening to me a few minutes ago he would have known that I prefaced my remarks by saying that I sent a complete copy of this correspondence to the Minister of Finance for his consideration. Some of my colleagues have done the same thing, and they have not received a satisfactory answer.
Coming back to the main argument, may I say that relief should be given to that young man. I hope that the member for Battle River presses his amendment as indicated, and I shall support him at every opportunity.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. There is no amendment before the committee.


James Arthur Ross: There probably will be one in a few minutes. I realize that I am not permitted to anticipate. In view of the letter from one of these old settlers, which I read, and the financial consideration that the taxpayers of this country have given to the German veteran who fought against these old soldiers and who came to this country later, I say that these old soldiers are entitled to some further consideration. I do not think there is any doubt about that. I do not know why there is a concerted effort on the part of the government to dispose of this matter as they are attempting to do at this time. If we are to consider-I was going to say-almost squandering huge sums of the taxpayers' money in every direction, why should we be so niggardly toward these old soldiers? It was they and their dependents who made it possible for us to enjoy our present way of life in Canada. We should give them some further consideration at this time and thereby enhance the welfare and the future of this nation.


Mr. MacNICOL:: At first I had not intended to take any part in the discussion, but I must confess I was greatly impressed by the remarks made by the hon. member for
[The Chairman.]
Battle River (Mr. Fair). They recall to my mind a case which I had before the house on two or three different occasions. It was that of a young soldier whose name I shall refer to as Lieutenant Frank M., of the county of Wellington, Ontario, who during the first great war won the military medal, and who later went to Saskatchewan and took up land. He was financed by his father, who at that time was financially well-off in Ontario. Later because of drought and depression this young man went through trying times. I received many letters from him at that time and I brought his case up in the house and pressed for relief to be given to him so that he might hold his land. I am sorry to say that in the end he signed a quit claim, deed and lost not only what he had put into the farm but what his father had put in. He then left that part of the country, and the father afterwards died.
After listening to the hon. member for Battle River present his plea I had hoped that the parliamentary assistant to the minister, who is doing a good job in piloting the bill through the house, would give some relief to these people. I do not suppose any relief can be given to the young man I mentioned, because he lost his land some time ago.


Walter Adam Tucker: When did he lose his land?


John Ritchie MacNicol: It might be two or three years ago. If the parliamentary assistant is interested I may be able to get him the information. I believe I took the matter up with him.


Walter Adam Tucker: I do not remember it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I shall send the particulars to him, to see if any relief can be given to this young man who lost everything he had in the world. As I said, he won a decoration in the last war. I trust that something may be done for him, by way of either a position in the government, or something else. During the past war he acted as a guard in one of the prisoner of war camps at Lethbridge. What I started to say was this, that the parliamentary secretary is a westerner, sympathetic, and he is a former soldier. As such he must be thoroughly conversant with the trials and troubles through which many of these people passed during those terrible days of depression. I urge upon him that he use his influence with the minister, so that the minister may give a sympathetic ear to the submissions made by the hon. member for Battle River.


Mr. BAKER:: Mr. Chairman, I have sat as long as I can listening to hon. members on the other side of the house talking as though

Soldier Settlement
they were the only ones interested in veterans affairs. I do not like using the first person pronoun, and seldom do; but I served in the armed forces for six years, as did a good many others on this side of the house, as well as on the other side.
The veterans affairs committee has been coming in for a bit of battering, and I do not care for it. We have enough fighting among ourselves, because where one finds soldiers he generally finds fighting. Eventually they get together. But when it all has to be fought out again in the House of Commons, I resent it.
I resent, too, the remarks of the hon. member for Broadview, much as I respect his age and his great knowledge. He has been in parliament a long time. I saw him here over twenty years ago, when I was a small boy. We were good enough to allow him to come to our committee so that he might present his case. I was there at the time, and with the others listened with keen interest to what the hon. member had to say. The ideas he advanced were duly considered. But for the hon. member to come here and make the remarks he did about the veterans affairs committee is just a little too much, and I resent it.
I will tell you this, that I came back from the war, but I have not yet been able to get into business. I came to the House of Commons, telling my constituents that I was coming here to try to help the veterans. I am not a professional parliamentarian; that is obvious. But if this sort of thing continues I personally am going to resign from the veterans affairs committee, because I have heard accusations coming from the opposite side of the house which I strongly resent.
Here we have bill No. 199, which purports to do something for the veterans. I am not objecting to what the hon. member for Battle River has said. He has been fighting this matter for years, and fighting for what he believes is correct. I have no recrimination whatsoever to lodge against him; he is doing what he believes is right. I am not saying I think it is right; neither am I saying anything against the hon. member. That is another story. But I do maintain that this bill is going to help the veterans-that is, if we can get it through. So why not deal with what we have before us now? Get that through; and if there is anything else to be brought up, bring it up. It is obvious that the government is willing to put this measure into effect as soon as it can.
I know the hon. member for Battle River is in dead earnest in what he has said, and in the amendment he has said he will move. I know many other veterans think the same as he does. I am trying to be frank, because
I am not a politician. In my view the $5,000,000 item is not a very serious one. But I do feel that in view of what we might run into in the future, it would be a dangerous precedent to establish. We must remember that a great percentage of our national revenue is going to veterans and veterans affairs. We must keep the public in a state of mind in which they will favour supporting veterans affairs, and in which they will see that veterans get the best possible deal. The only way we can do that is to produce legislation which the public will think is fair, and which will leave them with the feeling that we are doing the right thing.
Mind you, I think the general public would probably favour what the hon. member for Battle River has said; but from what I have seen in parliament, if we start on a procedure of that kind it is apt to grow and grow. We may not feel the full effect of it at the present time. My view is, however, that in ten or fifteen years we will be going through harder trials than we are to-day, in connection with making readjustments and that sort of thing.
I may be wrong in that, of course; it is only my opinion.
I do suggest that in future we ought not to lose our tempers-as I did just now-but that we should forget about the veterans affairs committee as such in this debate. We are in there, trying to do a good job; do not criticize it. We are working hard all the time-I believe it is the hardest working committee in the House of Commons. Further, we will do our best-and if there is any political finagling it certainly is not all on one side, I can tell you that. Let us get on with the business, and try to get this bill through.


Robert Fair: I thank the hon. member for the sympathetic and fair-minded view he has taken. I would also point out to him that so far as I am concerned I have no interest in politics. I have a much better home on the farm than I ever had here in Ottawa. I am quite satisfied that our climate in Alberta is much better than the climate here. So far as I am concerned I should be quite willing to . stay at home as soon as the people in my constituency think I have given them sufficient service. But realizing that forty-eight per cent of my constituents voted for me, from a field of five, I feel that what I have carried on in the past has been along the right line, and that they will want me to carry it through to a finish.
I assure the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare that I have no political interest at all, because I managed to make a living through the depression years, and did not have to come to Ottawa to get it.

Soldier Settlement
I do not wish to disappoint the chairman or the hon. member for Souris, so I shall move my amendment. Before doing so however I should like to read a co-py of some correspondence which came in the mail to-day. I may say we have had several other letters along the same line. The veterans affairs committee knows at least some of the particulars of this case. I make no charge against the committee, because I know they have done a large amount of useful work, and I hope they will so continue until their job is successfully completed. What I am about to read is a copy of a letter addressed to Mr. Tucker, M.P., chairman, and Mr. A. L. Burgess, clerk of the special veterans committee at Ottawa. It reads:
Dear Sir:
In reply to yours of the 3rd December, 1945, as to evidence I wish to submit to the veterans committee re the administration of the S.S.B.
(a)	I accuse the S.S.B. administration of operating the S.S.B. as a criminal racket defrauding both the soldier settlers and the dominion treasury.
(b)	I accuse the administration, by its actions, of openly and deliberately defying the provisions of Soldier Settlement Act and the criminal code of Canada, on not less than twenty major charges of violation.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. From what the hon. member has already read I realize that he is reading from a circular letter which was sent, I believe, to practically all members of the house, making virulent charges against the soldier settlement board. That letter was considered by the veterans affairs committee. For reasons which I do not wish to give on the floor of the house, the steering committee of the veterans affairs committee decided they would not hear the writer of that letter, and decided also that he should be asked to make his charges in a proper court, where the matter could be properly aired. I suggest that it is out of order for the hon. member to read a letter like this without taking any responsibility for it at all, a letter which has been before our committee, which they have considered more than once, and which, by unanimous consent, they decided should not be dealt with in the committee and preferably not in parliament.
I know that is not binding on the hon. member. I can see quite well that he has no confidence in the veterans affairs committee.


Robert Fair: I object, and I ask the hon. member to withdraw what he has said.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am just making an
observation.


Robert Fair: I ask that that statement be withdrawn, because it is not correct.
[Mr. Fair.l


Walter Adam Tucker: I am just making an
observation based upon the hon. member's action and his statement.


An hon. MEMBER:: Withdraw.


William Ross Macdonald: It is not necessary to have anything withdrawn. The hon. member for Rosthern must accept the statement of the hon. member for Battle River that he has confidence in the veterans affairs committee. The hon. member for Battle River has stated that he has confidence in the committee, and that statement must be accepted.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am glad to hear him say that. To continue the point-


Robert Fair: I ask that the hon. member withdraw his remark.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am not through speaking on the point of order. As a matter of public decency, here is a letter making virulent charges against a prominent public servant. The hon. member does not undertake to vouch for the correctness of these charges. I submit to you, sir, that it is improper, that it would be a shame and a disgrace if the hon. member, without taking any responsibility for what he is about to read, should be permitted to spread upon the pages of Hansard an unjustified attack upon a prominent public servant of this country from a source whose reliability we do not know. I submit that under the rules laid down an hon. member has no right to read a letter reflecting upon the proceedings of the house and containing scandalous or scurrilous matter. I submit that he is out of order. If he would consult with the other members of the veterans affairs committee I think they would advise him that in fairness to the director and officials of the Veterans Land Act he should tell the man who wrote this letter that he should have recourse to the courts and not continually spread such propaganda. The hon. member should not himself endeavour to spread this upon the pages of Hansard without having any proof of its truth.


Robert Fair: Now that the hon. gentleman has got rid of some of his excess speech, I should like him to withdraw the statement he made that I have no confidence in the veterans affairs committee. I ask for that withdrawal right now.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member for Rosthern has accepted the hon. member's statement.


Mr. REID:: Have we in this house-


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I ruled that the hon. member for Rosthern must accept the

Soldier Settlement
statement of the hon. member for Battle River when the hon. member for Battle River said that he had confidence in the committee.


Mr. QUELCH:: The hon. member for
Rosthern has stated that this came before the steering committee.


William Ross Macdonald: I want to get this point settled before we get into another question. The hon. member for Rosthern, I believe, did accept the statement of the hon. member for Battle River.


Walter Adam Tucker: I said that I was glad to hear what the hon. member had said. I accept the fact that he said it, but I still have m5r own beliefs in this connection and nobody can change them so easily. According to the rules of this house, if I am pressed to say that I heard him say he has confidence in the committee, I will do so, but I have my own firm beliefs in that regard, based on the attitude he has displayed in this debate.


Robert Fair: I still demand a withdrawal by the hon. member.


Thomas Reid: There is nothing to withdraw; I would not withdraw it.


William Ross Macdonald: It is not a matter of the withdrawal of a statement that has been made. There is nothing unparliamentary about what has been said. It is a matter of fact that the hon. member for Rosthern has accepted what the hon. member for Battle River has said.


Mr. LENNARD:: He may have accepted it, but-


Robert Fair: I still demand that that statement be withdrawn. Then there is still another insinuation that has been made. I want to have that withdrawn before I proceed.


William Ross Macdonald: My hon. friend may think there is an insinuation, but I do not. There is nothing before the committee to be withdrawn. Shall section 1 carry?


Robert Fair: Not yet.
I ask, therefore, to be allowed to attend and testify in person in regard


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member for Rosthern has raised a question with regard to the contents of the letter the hon. member for Battle River is about to read. I have not seen the letter, and I do not know its contents; therefore I cannot rule upon it. If the letter has been considered already by the veterans affairs steering committee, and it was decided not to consider it, I think the hon. member for Battle River might agree not to proceed with the reading of it.


James Arthur Ross: The fact that it has been considered in the committee does not prevent any member of the committee from bringing it up in the house.


Victor Quelch: This came up before the steering committee on two or three occasions and we felt that it would not do any good to allow the man who had written the letter to come down. It was thought that if we allowed individual cases to come before the committee we would never get through the business. The procedure in the veterans affairs committee has been not to deal with individual cases. That is why we did not take up this particular case. However, I do not remember its being stated in the steering committee or in the veterans affairs committee that this matter could not be brought before parliament. As a matter of fact we would not have the power to rule that a letter sent to a member should not be brought before parliament. In view of the fact that every hon. member has received a copy of the letter, I cannot see what harm would' be done if the hon. member should read it. It was definitely the opinion of the veterans affairs committee that this matter should not be dealt with by the committee, otherwise we might be bogged down with a lot of individual cases.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: On the point of order raised as to the inadmissibility of this letter, is it not a fact that any hon. member rising in his place to quote from a letter which contains charges or allegations muit vouch for that letter on his responsibility as a member? >If that is so, I think it should be clearly understood by the hon. member for Battle River that in repeating the contents of this letter, which by the way I have seen, he would be assuming responsibility for the letter as a member of this house. If that is according to the rules, then I think it should be brought to the attention of the hon. member.


Robert Fair: I believe the members of the veterans affairs committee and the members of this committee are conversant with the case with which I was about to deal. I am not fussy about putting the whole thing on the record, because it would not look very good. If I did put it on, it would not be on my own responsibility, even though that is suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg South or the parliamentary assistant to the minister.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I did not make a suggestion; I asked a question.


Robert Fair: Having heard a little about this case perhaps 'hon. members will interest themselves in the particulars of it and try to learn about the kind of house this man is
Soldier Settlement

living in, and what kind of bedding he has in the winter time, and whether he has to sleep in a fur coat in ordler to keep warm. They may then decide whether that is good enough treatment for a veteran of great war I. Having said that, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton:
That Bill 199 be amended by:
(a)	striking out the word "sections" where it appears in the third line of section 1 and substituting therefor the word "section."
(b)	adding after the word "where" in the first line of the section the words "on March 31, 1944."
(c)	striking out subsections (d), (e) and (f) of section 76.
(d)	striking out section 77 and substituting the following as subsection (d):
"The government shall cancel all remaining indebtedness on account of the purchase agreement, and shall render to the persons so indebted full title to the said land," so that the bill will now read:
1. The Soldier Settlement Act, chapter one hundred and eighty-eight of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, is amended by adding thereto the following section:
76. In any case where at March 31, 1944,
(a)	a person is indebted in respect of any agreement made under this act;
(b)	a person has not abandoned his land;
(c)	the agreement has not been terminated, rescinded or assigned;
_ (d) the government shall cancel all remaining indebtedness on account of the purchase agreement, and shall render to the persons so indebted full title to the said land.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	Mr. Chairman, I
happen to be in the unfortunate position at this moment of leading the house on behalf of the government, and it is my responsibility to point out to you that this proposed amendment is absolutely unconstitutional. It is not a matter of order; it is a matter of attempting to do something which the constitution says cannot be done. Sections 53 and 54 of the British North America Act, by which we are all bound and which cannot be changed by any vote of this house, provide:
53.	Bills for appropriating any part of the public revenue or for imposing any tax or impost, shall originate in the House of Commons.
54.	It shall not be lawful-
That is the constitution:
-for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to that house by message of the governor general in the session in which such vote, resolution, address, or bill is proposed.
We all listened with very much interest, and with sympathy as well, to the arguments adduced at the resolution stage when it was suggested that it would be the proper thing for this country to forgive the indebtedness still due by the settlers under this Soldier Settlement Act. It was pointed out that it would
[Mr. Fair.l
amount to a little more than $5,000,000, and not more than that, as a direct remission, and that that was a small enough contribution to make for the relief of the veterans in question. But that is what this proposed amendment to the bill would do directly. It was pointed out in the course of debate that it would probably destroy the effectiveness of the administration of the Soldier Settlement Act at the present time if a sum, even if it be only $5,000,000, were forgiven at this time because it had not been paid at the moments when under the contracts it would have become payable. But that just cannot be done. Citation 549 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms says:
The rule-
That is the rule of the constitution :
The rule also applies to releasing or compounding any sum of money due to the crown and to the imposition of any state tax upon the people, but not to pecuniary penalties necessary to the operation of a bill.
I appreciate that there are many hon. members who wanted to have their views on the record as being favourable to the course proposed. But under the constitution as we have it, the house cannot do what is proposed unless there is brought into the house a resolution recommended by His Excellency the Governor General. That is the situation under the constitution. I submit to you, sir, that it is not a question of order. It is not a question of a standing order of the house that can be varied by the majority. It is a positive impediment-


Mr. BURTON:: Was this bill preceded by a message from His Excellency?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Oh, yes.


Joseph William Burton: I do not recall it.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There was a resolution recommended to the house- by the governor general and it was debated at considerable length In the course of that debate it was pointed out that the forgiving of this indebtedness would mean directly only $5,000,000 odd; that was the amount of indebtedness which those supporting that view would like to have the country give up. But the house cannot do it under our constitution until it is recommended to the house by His Excellency the Governor General.


George Hugh Castleden: Section 54 of the British North America Act refers to the appropriation of any part of the public revenue. Is this public revenue? What about the cost of collecting it?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The cost of the administration of the government of Canada frequently more than equals the revenue of the

Soldier Settlement
government of Canada, but that does not mean that what is collected is not a part of the revenue of Canada. That is an appropriation proposed of a part of what is due to become a portion of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


George Hugh Castleden: It may be revenue in the future; it is not revenue now.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It is an asset, for whatever it is worth, that belongs to the government of Canada, and that asset cannot be disposed of by the house without a message from His Excellency the Governor General recommending a resolution to that effect.


George Hugh Castleden: It just says revenue.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am not going to
redraft it. I am submitting that it means that anything belonging to Canada cannot be disposed of without its disposal being recommended to the house by the governor general.


Mr. FLEMING:: On the point of order I would point out that Hansard does not record a message from the governor general, either at the resolution stage, at page 2818 of Hansard, or on the first reading of the bill, at page 2868. In neither case was the house informed that the contents of the resolution or of the bill had been communicated to His Excellency and that His Excellency had approved its submission to the house. Is it the fact that His Excellency gave that permission before the resolution was introduced?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The hon. member will find that, in Votes and Proceedings. The practice is that notice of the intention to introduce a resolution is placed on Votes and Proceedings and there is a similar one on the Votes and Proceedings to-day. On the orders of the day it will be inscribed as a notice of government motion and it will be called and the Speaker will declare the minister moves that at the next sitting the house go into committee of the whole to consider the terms of the resolution, and at that moment the minister in charge of the resolution gets up and declares that the resolution has been, communicated to the governor general and that he is pleased to recommend it to the consideration of the house. Then next day or at some later day it is called to be considered in the committee. I will find for the hon. member the reference in the Votes and Proceedings to the declaration by the minister in charge that this was recommended to the consideration of the house.


Robert Fair: I do not think the argument of the Minister of Justice is very strong. We have no proof, as far as I can see, that this 63260-190	[DOT]
is going to cost the country any money; in fact I think it would save the country money, and, what is more important, it would save a whole lot of suffering to the old veterans who fought in the first great world war.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Would the hon. member permit me to give the hon. member for Eglinton the reference? It has now been turned up. The consent of His Excellency the Governor General was communicated to the house by the Minister of Veterans Affairs on April 12 last; and that report is to be found at page 137 of the Votes and Proceedings of this session.


Robert Fair: Carrying on, Mr, Chairman, 1 was trying to point out that there is a question of justice to these old veterans which has never been recognized during all this time. A concession has been made-I am quite willing to admit that-but I must also point out that the concessions never caught up with the disadvantages under which these men have worked all these years. I think we should take into consideration, as well as the legal aspect, some of the humanitarian considerations.
The second argument advanced by the Minister of Justice is that this proposal would destroy the administration of this particular board. I do not think that that is quite correct, because taking this as a precedent, a man settling under the Veterans Land Act cannot claim any such deal as w'e are proposing for the old veterans until twenty-five years after he has settled on his holding; and I hope that this country will not impose upon veterans of the last war conditions which will prevent them from paying their debt for a term of twenty-five years, because I think you all realize that a whole lot of suffering can be packed into twenty-five years, even when these people are in the prime of life.


George Hugh Castleden: Apparently under section 54 of the British North America Act it is not lawful for the house to pass any such resolution or bill for the appropriation of any tax or impost to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the house by a message of the governor general in the session in which the vote, resolution, address, or bill is proposed. I can assure hon. members that a recommendation will be asked for from the governor general, and that a request or resolution from the soldier settlers who are affected in this respect will be sent to the governor general from that organization. Whether he will act upon it or not I do not know. By this section, of course, the government itself must sponsor any such motion, and I appeal to the members of the government who have

Soldier Settlement

the interests and the welfare of these men at heart, to exert their influence along that line.


William Ross Macdonald: Do I understand that the hon. member for Battle River, in view of the remarks made by the Minister of Justice, is withdrawing his amendment?


Robert Fair: No.


William Ross Macdonald: Then it is necessary for me to consider the remarks which have been made by the Minister of Justice, and also by the hon. member for Battle River and the hon. member for Yorkton, with respect to this matter. The Minister of Justice has raised the question whether the amendment can be considered in the committee in accordance with the constitution. He has referred to the British North America Act, section 54. Before reading that section I shall read, not the whole of the proposed amendment, but the last clause, which states:
The government shall cancel all remaining indebtedness on account of the purchase agreement and shall render to the person so indebted full title to the said land.
Section 54 of the British North America Act reads:
It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address,, or hill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to that house by message of the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed.
Now I would refer hon. members to Beau-chesne's "Parliamentary Rules and Forms", third edition, paragraph 436, where it is stated:
The recommendation of the crown is needed for such measures as bills relating to the extension of time for the repayment of the deposit which has become liable to forfeiture in the case of a private bill;
And I would ask hon. members to note the following words:
the release or compounding of sums due to the crown;
This amendment proposes that there should be a release of certain sums due the crown. It would therefore appear that it would first have to have the approval of His Excellency the Governor General. If it has not that approval it would be beyond the powers of -even the government itself to make such an amendment, and I would say that the government itself could not advance a bill of this nature unless the government had first obtained the approval of the governor general.
Might I draw to the attention of hon. members a ruling which was made by the Hon. Mr. Lemieux on February 15, 1923, as
fMr. Casfleden.]
recorded in Beauehesne, 3rd edition, page 541. I will just read the headnote:
A resolution that the government relinquish certain specified claims cannot be considered on a private member's motion but must be taken up in committee of the whole upon the Governor General's recommendation.
It is necessary for me to consider whether or not this amendment comes within the powers of this committee; and I have come to the conclusion, after hearing the remarks of the hon. members to whom I referred a minute ago, that it is clearly not within our jurisdiction and that it is impossible for me to allow a question to be proposed upon the motion. Again I would refer to Beauehesne, 3rd edition, at page 168, where it is stated:
"If any motion, or bill, or proceeding is offered to be moved, whether in the house or in a committee, which requires, but fails to receive, the recommendation of the crown, it is the duty of the Chair to announce that no question can be proposed upon the motion . . ."
That is an extract from May, page 505.
And I see in Bourinot, at page 179:
In accordance with his duty he (the Speaker or Chairman) declines to submit to the house motions which obviously infringe the rules of the house or privileges of parliament, such as a motion which would create or increase a charge upon the people and is not recommended by the crown or a motion of which proper notice has not been given and in such case he shall apprise the house immediately as to the rule or authority applicable to the case.
I am therefore compelled to state that the amendment is obviously beyond the powers of the committee and I cannot propose it to the committee.


Robert Fair: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I challenge your ruling.


William Ross Macdonald: There is no appeal. I have not settled any point of order. It is my duty, before any amendment is considered in committee, to satisfy myself that it is within the jurisdiction of the committee. If I am of the opinion that it is not, there is no further debate upon it and there is no appeal. I would remind hon. members that standing order 12, section 1, provides that Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and decorum and shall decide questions of order, subject to appeal to the house without debate. I have not decided a question of order. The matter before the committee is bill No. 199, section 1. Shall the section carry?


Mr. STIRLING:: WTould you be good
enough, Mr. Chairman, to say under what standing order you take the view that although you have not declared the amendment out of order you stand on the constitution. I take it your ruling is that you have not declared the amendment out of order, but because in

Supply-Health and Weljare
your opinion it is contrary to the constitution you have made a decision which cannot be appealed. Would you be good enough to tell the committee under what standing order you take that position?


William Ross Macdonald: I have cited standing order 12, which makes the rulings of the chair subject to appeal on points of order. This is not a point of order. It is a question whether or not the amendment comes within the jurisdiction of this committee. If it is clearly not within our jurisdiction I have not the power to put it to the committee, and it is beyond the power of the committee to consider it. I declare, therefore, that the amendment is not before the committee. The matter before the committee is the bill.


Grote Stirling: Surely you have either to declare the amendment out of order or you have not. If you have declared it out of order it is open to the committee to challenge your ruling. If you have not ruled it out of order, if you have raised a question of the constitution, there must be somewhere in this book a rule upon which you stand.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Chairman, did you not just a moment ago read to the committee the doctrine, as expressed in May, that if a motion is made that requires a recommendation and it is not preceded by that recommendation, the Chairman cannot put to the house any question in relation to that motion?


William Ross Macdonald: That is taken from Bourinot, at page 179 and from May, at page 505, and it is referred to in Beauchesne, third edition, at page 168. I am following the procedure therein set forth. The matter before the committee is bill No. 199, section 1. Shall the section carry?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE Miscellaneous grants-
235. Grant to Health League of Canada,
[Stage Direction]
' Mr. BLACKMORE: There is one matter of great importance to the people of Canada as a whole which I should like to discuss for a few moments, and in order to do so properly I propose to begin by referring to the subject of cancer. This subject has been discussed by members on several occasions and it will do no 63260-1901
harm to review some of the facts pertaining to that dreadful disease.
Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: With all respect to the hon. member, I would raise the point that we are on item 235 which provides for a grant to the Health League of Canada.
I do not know of any way in which that grant is associated with cancer. When the estimates were under consideration before, on two separate occasions, we had lengthy discussions on cancer, and I would submit that, unless there is something in the hon. gentleman's remarks to show a greater relevancy than now appears, a discussion on cancer would not be in order on this vote.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Considering the fact that the health league is to-day engaged in a life and death struggle against cancer, above all things in Canada, the minister's remarks are astonishing. There is hardly an issue of the health league magazine that is not almost filled with discussions on cancer.


Brooke Claxton: I would submit that the time to discuss cancer is on something related to the general functions of the department, and not on a grant to the Health League of Canada. As part of its activities the Health League of Canada may do some educational work in connection with cancer, but I would submit that this discussion should have taken place when the administration of the department was under discussion and when we had a rather full discussion of the matter.


John Horne Blackmore: I presume that the publication of the health magazine is part of the activities of the Health League -of Canada. Am I right?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: Very well. I am going to discuss one of the issues of the Health League of Canada's magazine.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I am not going to give a ruling definitely on the point raised, but I think all hon. members will agree that if we discuss cancer under the heading "Health League of Canada" we can probably discuss it again under practically all the items. The next item is "Canadian National Institute for the Blind". If cancer is discussed under the Health League of Canada it could be discussed under the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, or under the Victorian Order of Nurses, or the St. John Ambulance Association, and so forth. We did have a fairly general discussion on that subject when the estimates were before the committee previously. I ask the committee to endeavour to confine its dis-
Supply-Health and Welfare

cussion to the definite vote. The hon. member for Lethbridge saw something with respect to cancer in one of the magazines put out by the Health League of Canada. Of course he can discuss that.


John Horne Blackmore: I bow to your ruling quite readily, Mr. Chairman. Before I go on with the discussion I wish to suggest to the minister that this appropriation of $10,000 is either too much or it is not half enough. If the Health League of Canada is performing the function which hon. members of the committee would normally expect it to perform, then $10,000 is not nearly as much as it ought, to be given. If it is not performing that function we ought to cut down this appropriation to $100 or so. I think the Health League of Canada is performing, so far as it possibly can, the function which we would wish it to perform. If I am to be barred from the privilege of discussing the magazine- and I admit I am completely in the hands of the Chairman-then probably I shall have to find ways and means of accomplishing my objective without discussing canceir.
Let us take it for granted that the dreadful aspects of cancer are all known, and that its seriousness is well known. I wish to draw the committees attention to the fact that strange maladies are developing in our society, in Canada and in the United States. Men do not understand these maladies. The discussion on arthritis, which was carried on earnestly some time ago, indicates how completely bewildered the medical profession on the American continent is with respect to arthritis. The cause of cancer is, of course, completely unknown to us at the present time. Probably there is one thing which is standing in the way of our making effective efforts to discuss the nature and the causes of these maladies. I wish to give some attention to that to-day. There is an influence standing directly in the way of the discovery and introduction of adequate treatment of some of these dreadful diseases.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but I cannot see how his remarks are directly related to the Health League of Canada, which organization is getting a grant of $10,000. I think it is the wish of the committee at this time that all remarks should be strictly relevant to the vote under consideration.


John Horne Blackmore: Would the minister tell us what the Health League is for and why a sum of $10,000 is to be given to it? Apparently it is not attempting to do anything, because if it does not try to find the causes of
[The Chairman.]
and remedies for such things as arthritis, cancer and other serious ills, what is the use of having the league? Will the minister tell the committee what the Health League of Canada is, why this committee should be giving it $10,000, and why it should not be giving it $25,000 if it is worth supporting?


Brooke Claxton: The Health League of Canada has been in existence for twentydive years. During that time it has carried on exceedingly valuable work-


John Horne Blackmore: In connection with what?


Brooke Claxton: Will you please let me go on without interruption?


John Horne Blackmore: You interrupted me a few moments ago, stopped me from talking.


Brooke Claxton: I did that in accordance with the rules of the house in order to raise a point of order which I thought it was my duty to do. The Health League of Canada is an educational organization. I do not think it does any research work; I have never heard of its doing any research and it is not part of its functions to do any research. When it was first established its work was largely concentrated on educational activities in connection with the reduction of venereal disease. That field of activity was broadened out subsequently, and it did a great deal of work in connection with immunization, particularly of children, so as to prevent their taking a number of diseases which could be prevented by that means. For example, in November of last year they put on a campaign from one end of Canada to the other which secured highly favourable results. It has also done special work in connection with industrial health, with nutrition and with securing the pasteurization of milk. It is in these five fields that the Health League of Canada has specially operated. Incidentally it may have done promotional or educational work in connection with cancer, but it is no part of its function to do any research. Grants to the Health League of Canada were commenced in 1919, when $5,000 was given. They have been carried through at various figures.
In addition to the money received from the federal government, the Health League of Canada receives grants from other bodies and from the general public as well. It has a wide influence in promoting interest in health. It has public meetings; it distributes its magazine, shows, films, distributes pamphlets, and at the request of local authorities directly carries on such campaigns as that to secure the introduction of laws requiring the pasteurization of

Supply-Health and Welfare
milk. Altogether it is a most useful organization, doing great work. As hon. members who are interested in health matters are well aware, it has always taken an active interest in the voluntary health committee of the Senate and the House of Commons It has been very useful indeed in helping the chairman and officers of that committee in securing desirable speakers for the various meetings of that committee which are held throughout the year. I support what the hon. member for Lethbridge said as to its being a desirable institution and I hope the committee will pass this vote.


John Horne Blackmore: Is the Health League of Canada carrying on a national campaign throughout Canada at the present time with respect to cancer?


Brooke Claxton: No. I think the hon. member must have in mind the Canadian cancer society, which has been carrying on an effective campaign throughout Canada.


John Horne Blackmore: Has the Health
League of Canada anything to do with that organization, directly or indirectly?


Brooke Claxton: No connection whatsoever. It is possible that the health league or some of its officers may have been helpful in the inauguration of the Canadian cancer society in 1938, and suggested its formation. But I do not think its activities with regard to cancer go any farther than that.


John Horne Blackmore: We must take it from what the minister has said that he desires no further discussion in the house this year on the matter of cancer. He does not want any discussion in any way whatsoever as to the seriousness of the disease, any discussion as to the possible means of finding a remedy, any discussion as to the activities his department should take in order to make sure that a remedy may be found, or that it would be publicized, introduced and applied throughout Canada when it is found. Do I take it from what the minister has said that from this time forward there is to be no more discussion in this session on the matter of cancer, under any heading?


Brooke Claxton: It is not for me to say what the house shall or shall not discuss. That is for the house to say, in accordance with its rules. Certainly the rules are clearly laid down, and the hion. member well knows that when we are in committee of supply only those matters pertinent to the item before the committee are to be discussed. The hon. member for Lethbridge must know that better than I do, because he has been here longer than I have. If there is an appropriate
time for the further discussion of cancer, I would welcome it. But with all respect I must say, and I think the hon. members who have been here during the discussion we have had on cancer will agree, that we have already had a very full discussion of cancer in connection with these estimates.


George Hugh Castleden: I believe that the Health League of Canada is deserving of the support of all parties in the house, and that the increase in this year's estimates will have the support of all. The league is doing outstanding work, a work which I believe is not equalled in any other country. I believe that at this time branches have been established in all the provinces.
Its great work has been in the field of adult education, and its success in securing the support of the daily and weekly newspapers in practically all cities across Canada is some indication of the value of its work. I believe, too, that it has received free advertising on Canadian street cars which could be valued at some tens of thousands of dollars. Its works in matters of nutrition and in public education based on good health seem to be sound, and have received the approval of the general public.
The committee has had ample opportunity to see some of its work. Through its efforts and those of the government we have had the privilege of hearing such men as Doctor Sigerist of Johns Hopkins university, Sir Wilson Jamieson from the British government and, more recently. Professor Tisdall of Toronto. The committee will welcome this increase in the vote, and we would hope that in the near future it might get back to the figure of $20,000, at which it stood some years ago. I should be remiss if I did not pay tribute to Doctor Gordon Bates, who has been in Ottawa frequently urging members to show an interest in this matter, because the league knows that the support of public men in Canada is most valuable to it in carrying on its educational work.


Douglas King Hazen: What is the membership of the Health League of Canada? How many branches has it, and where are they located? What is its annual income? How many of its officials are paid1, and what are their salaries?


Brooke Claxton: The latest statement in my possession shows an income of $78,811.51. I believe it has branches in several provinces.


Douglas King Hazen: One or more?


Brooke Claxton: I believe it is organized on a basis of provincial branches. It has a small staff of paid full-time workers.
Supply-Health and Welfare


John Horne Blackmore: There were two or three extremely important matters pertaining to the study of eancer and the seeking of a cure which I wished to discuss this afternoon. The minister has prevented my discussing that matter, and from bringing in matters which I consider of great importance. I want it to be known, and to be recorded in Hansard that the minister is responsible for preventing that discussion.


William Ross Macdonald: Order; I think the
Chairman must assume the responsibility. It is the Chairman who must see that the rules of the committee are followed by all hon. members. Standing order 58 (2) states:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
It is my responsibility to ask hon. members when in committee to direct their remarks to the item under consideration.


John Horne Blackmore: I grant that, and bow to your ruling. But I draw attention to the fact that if one will go right through the items listed under the Department of Health and Welfare he will find that cancer is not mentioned in any one of them. I think that makes it clear that you, Mr. Chairman, if you so chose, could rule out a discussion of cancer under any of these items. That is a serious matter. The result is that the interpretation of items is left in the hands of the Chairman- and I have noticed that the Chairman is generally guided by the minister whose estimates are before the committee.


William Ross Macdonald: I must correct the hon. member for Lethbridge. My actions are guided by no hon. member, whether he be a member of the government or any other hon. member. I am in the hands of the committee, and it is my diuty-and I hope I am performing it-to follow out at all times the instructions and wishes of the committee.


John Horne Blackmore: I am not going to say more, but I just wish to have it clearly understood that it is either you, Mr. Chairman, or the minister who has prevented a discussion of cancer, and prevented the bringing forward this afternoon of matters which, in my judgment, would be of great importance in connection with the discovery of a cure for cancer.


Douglas King Hazen: I asked two questions to which I did not receive answers. What is the membership of the league; what are the names of the -paid1 employees, and how much are they paid?


Brooke Claxton: I have not the names nor salaries of the employees. The support of the Health League of Canada is to a large extent
IMr. Claxton.]
on the basis of affiliated organizations. A large number of organizations support it, receive its publications and the like. I have not a note as to the number of members, nor do I think there is any such record here. It is not an organization which charges a membership fee of a dollar or ten dollars. It is a voluntary organization primarily for educational purposes, and very largely supported by other institutions.


Douglas King Hazen: The committee would be interested to know the size of the league. We are asked to vote money for it, and' we should have some idea of how it is constituted and of what its membership consists. What is the total amount paid in salaries by the league?


Brooke Claxton: I have not that information, but I am sure that by using the long distance telephone I could secure that information before eight o'clock.


Mrs. STRUM:: The other night Doctor Bates mentioned that a film was to be made in connection with the pasteurization of milk. Will some money be transferred from this vote, or will the cost be borne wholly by the film board?


Brooke Claxton: If a film on pasteurization is decided upon it would be financed by the Department of National Health and Welfare out of one of the votes for information. The film would then be shown by various means throughout Canada and one or more prints of it would be made available to the health league of Canada. The health league would also assist with technical advice in the preparation of the film. It is planned to have such a film at the present time.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: If the health league of Canada considers that this vote is sufficient, I am happy to support it, but I think it is a small sum to vote to such a valuable organization. The results it has achieved, particularly in connection with publicity, have been remarkable.


Brooke Claxton: I agree emphatically with what the hon. member has said. I would point out that the work of this organization should not be measured by the size of this grant. While the grant is substantial in itself, it is perhaps more important in showing the interest of the federal government in the work, and it may be that this is useful as a spark plug in assisting the organization to secure a large part of the support it gets. For instance, in connection with its campaign on immunization it was able to secure many tens of thousands of dollars worth of free publicity because of donations made by national advertisers and others. It has an

Supply-Health and Welfare
active executive head in Doctor Gordon Bates, and I think we can look forward to its doing valuable promotional work in this field.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous grants-
336. Canadian National Institute for the Blind, $18,000.
Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Is this the same amount as was voted last year for this institute?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: In view of the excellent work done by this institute is there any thought of increasing the grant?


Brooke Claxton: This same grant has been paid since 1931. The Canadian National Institute for the Blind, and the other institutes for the blind which are mentioned, have done exceedingly fine work, particularly in training the blind to look after themselves. This is only part of the money they receive, and the work they do must not be measured by the size of this grant.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I notice that the three other organizations which I assume carry on in the province of Quebec are receiving a total of $12,000, while only $18,000 is being given to the Canadian National Institute for the Blind which carries on work throughout the whole of Canada, including Quebec. Everybody knows about the excellent work it is doing and it is finding it a little hard to get sufficient money with which to carry on. Does the institute receive anything from the Department of Veterans Affairs for the work it does in connection with blind veterans?


Brooke Claxton: I cannot answer that. I would point out that the income of the Canadian Institute for the Blind is considerable, being something close to $700,000.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: It is more than that; it runs to between two and three million dollars because of its commercial work.


Brooke Claxton: The last statement we have shows its total income for the year ended March 31, 1944, as $675,901.20.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: That would be subscriptions and donations only, but the rest of its total income is from commercial work. It gets a couple of million dollars from that.
Mr. MacNI'COL: I believe the value of this vote is in the impetus it gives to a large number of men and women who are associated with the Canadian National Institute for the Blind across Canada to carry on its efficient and splendid work. I believe the head of
this institute, Lieutenant-Colonel Eddie Baker, was the founder. Lieutenant-Colonel Baker had the grievous misfortune of having his eyes drawn out by the suction of a shell that passed near his face during the first great war. Fortunately the shell did not hit him or he would have been killed. I believe he has been given some other title, an O.B.E. or something like that, and he is certainly worthy of any title this country can give him.
He has done marvellous work in connection with the national institute for the blind and the department is to be complimented upon supporting the work even to this extent. I presume if they had to have more the department would give them more. I agree with the hon. member for St. Paul's who states that many generous men and women throughout Canada are happy and willing to support this institute with time and means. We have all seen examples of their work. They have placed many blind men in booths in hospitals, city halls, public buildings and other places where they are able to make their own living. They have been given some purpose in life and it is interesting to note how happy they are. This wonderful work is worthy of support by the government.


Mr. PROBE:: I notice there are grants to four institutions for the blind and I presume the minister can explain why four grants are necessary. Can he tell us something of the welfare work being done by the different institutions? I know something about the work being done by the Canadian National Institute for the Blind but I know nothing about the other three. I always thought the Canadian National Institute for the Blind was all-inclusive, but apparently it is not and perhaps the minister could give ua a brief outline of the work done by the other organizations.


Brooke Claxton: Hon. members are familiar with the fine work done by the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, and I think I should say a word about the other three organizations. L'Association Canadienne Fran-gaise des Aveugles is established in the province of Quebec, largely in Montreal. It carries on work corresponding to the work done by the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. It assists the blind by giving instructions in the manufacture of fibre brooms, whisks, mops and all that kind of thing. Training is given in piano tuning, and employment is found in this kind of work. The association also provides the blind with free transportation and provides meals for blind
Supply-Health and Welfare

workers. It organizes social activities for the blind. The grant to this association was first made in 1927. _ It was carried on until cuts were made, as in all these grants, in 1932, and it has since been at the present figure. This association is also assisted by the province of Quebec, the city of Montreal, and Federated Charities.
The Inetitut Nazareth is an organization established in Montreal. It has to do primarily with hospitalization of the blind) and the education of the blind in music, classical studies, vocational training, and reading Braille. It supplies Braille books for the blind. Grants have been made to this organization from 1928 until they were reduced, in 1932. Since then, the grant has remained at the same figure. This organization also receives a grant from the province, the school commission, and the city of Montreal.
The third organization, the Montreal Association for the Blind, carries on in Montreal activities similar to those carried on by the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. It has workshops where instruction is given in vocational training and in Braille. There is a school for the blind, particularly for blind boys and girls. It has a home teaching and social service department. This organization has received a grant from 1927 up to 1932, when like the others it was reduced. It also receives grants from the province of Quebec, the city of Montreal, and Catholic Charities.
I am in a general way familiar with the work of all these organizations, which are doing very good work. There is, I believe, no overlapping or competition between them, and the grants have been made to them, as I have said), for a number of years past.


John Oliver Probe: I am pleased with the minister's explanation of the need for these grants. I think we are all satisfied with his explanation, and with his assurance that there is no overlapping because that is exceedingly important. Those of us Who do not live on the island of Montreal, when we see these three organizations centred in the island of Montreal, naturally hope that they are not getting special favours, and the. minister has given us that assurance.
A query enters my mind in connection with the Canadian grants to institutions for the blind. Does the department make compensatory grants in all provinces for educational purposes for the blind and, if so, under what vote might such items be found? People in the city of Montreal are favourably situated for receiving musical instruction and the other advantages mentioned by the minister. Do
	j
the blind in other parts of Canada receive equivalent training through institutes for the blind, that might be available to them? How are these particular grants reconciled with the needs of the blind in other parts of Canada?


Brooke Claxton: My understanding is that the Canadian National Institute for the Blind does the job for all the rest of Canada. These three organizations in Montreal and the province of Quebec have gone on for some time, and two of them may have developed because of the difference in language. Of course, the majority of the people in the province of Quebec are French-speaking, and that may make a difference. I know that the Canadian National Institute for the Blind does give service in Quebec, but the same services are not, so far as I know, given to the same people who are served by other organizations.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I just wanted to point out the extra work that has been taken on by the Canadian National Institute for the Blind in caring for the blind casualties of the war. That is why I brought the matter up. They have a new hall in Toronto near where I live, Baker Hall, with room for fifteen or sixteen returned boys from overseas, but they have not room for the others whom they wish to take in and they have to make other arrangements. That costs money. The people of my city are very glad, of course, to subscribe. Many splendid subscriptions have come in from individuals, but it would encourage the organization if they were given a larger grant.


Thomas Langton Church: This institute, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, was the pioneer in Canada in doing this wonderful work. It is headed now by Lieutenant-Colonel Edward Baker, a much decorated soldier and patriot. He was a brilliant engineer, a graduate of Queen's university, who went to the first great war and lost his sight. He has also lost a very fine young son serving as a brave officer with the navy in the second world war. This institute for the blind is largely dependent upon subscriptions, tag days and that kind of thing. But the time has come when this country should do more for the blind. We who sit around this building, costing $22,000,000, will be blind if the lighting conditions are not improved soon because we cannot see here without artificial light. I am afraid the minister is a little blind as to what this institute is doing. It has had a hard, uphill fight, but the directors with the aid of a very fine newspaper have carried on this work right along, without the recognition it should have from the public or govern-

Supply-Health and Well are
ments. Many of the school children of our cities and towns have defective vision. The board of education in Toronto conducts special classes for those with defective vision, and the health department of our city has spent a vast sum of money for medical services and for care for those with defective vision and other complaints.
This matter of the blind is a national question affecting every country in the world. Blindness is the worst affliction that can happen to anybody, and all we are granting is a measly $18,000. A deputation going to New York over the week-end would spend that much. Every Tom, Dick and Harry, who wants to, can take a joy ride at the public expense nowadays. I am not objecting to trips. I have no time for any myself. We had a parsimonious controller, Controller Foster, afterwards mayor, in Toronto at one time. He was a member of this house for some time, and he used to call these trips "joy rides". They may not be altogether joy rides. Some of those going on these joy rides ride in chariots, others in planes, others in trains, none on foot. We. cannot afford to spend all the money we do on conventions and curtail necessary work such as for the blind with pin-money. In last night's Citizen there is a picture of the Minister of Health and Welfare going to a convention in New York, accompanied by a whole retinue of A.D.C.'s, and so on. I do not object to trips, but I think they have been overdone, especially when people want retrenchment. I wonder whether parliament has any conception of its obligations to the men, women and children of this country who are suffering from the disease of blindness, and the number of soldiers and soldiers' children who require help. It is a national problem. I am not opposed to large expenditures for this national health department. It should be one of the main departments of the * public service because, after all, what is life to anybody who has lost his health? This department should be expanded until it becomes the main department of the public service.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I have had to remind other hon. members-[DOT]


Thomas Langton Church: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling it to my attention. It is a measly $18,000; it should be $180,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous grantstil. Victorian Order of Nurses, $13,100.
Frank Exton Lennard: Having had a great regard over the last few years for the splendid work which is being done by the Victorian Order
of Nurses, knowing what a magnificent work they are doing across Canada, I should like to draw to the attention of the minister one or two facts in connection with this organization.
First, I feel that the grant is altogether inadequate. It was instituted some ten years ago and has never been increased; at least I believe the grant was the same in 1934 as it is to-day; and the order has increased considerably since then, and deserves far greater support.
Let us for a moment consider the following facts. The number of Victorian Order branches is 101. Of these, twenty-seven have been organized during the last ten years since the grant was set up.
The number of patients served during 1945 was 100,118. The number of visits made during that year was 756,984; of these 50 per cent were free and 48 per cent were part paid.
Home nursing service is provided for patients on returning from hospitals, thus releasing hospital beds for more acutely ill patients.
The federal grant has been $13,100 per annum since 1934. The number of branches has increased by 36 per cent during the last ten years. Revenue has been considerably reduced by declining interest rates and more especially by depletion of capital funds to cover operating deficits. Expenses have increased sharply with expansion of service, and it has been necessary since 1934 to offer scholarships and uniform allowances in excess of $70,000 to attempt to maintain and build up a force of skilled public health nurses to ensure an efficient and adequate nursing service throughout Canada.
The Victorian Order of Nurses is financed by assistance from several sources, such as fees from patients, fees from insurance companies, government grants, public and private subscriptions and donations; and to give the committee some idea of the necessity of more funds to carry on this great service, the financial statement shows that in 1945 excess expenditure over revenue was $42,575.38. Just at this moment it is possible to carry on by making up this amount by using capital from endowments.
To save time, and with the unanimous consent of the committee, I have a financial statement which I should like to place on Hansard.


William Ross Macdonald: Has the hon. member unanimous consent?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.
Supply-Health and Welfare


Frank Exton Lennard: The statement is as follows:
Victorian Order of Nurses for Canada National Office Ottawa
Excess Expenditure over Revenue-General
Year	[DOT]
1936	
$1,114	901937	
6,775	171938	
8,022	711939	
1,978	131940	
566	891941	
66	491942	
3,277	521943	
7,504	281944	
11,772	121945	
42,575	381946	Estimated deficit	
46,550	00
Sharp increase in deficits from 1942 were chiefly due to payment of:
Scholarships	 $ 4,800
Scholarships	 6,150
Scholarships	 24,350
Uniform allowances	 5,025
Scholarships	 25,000
Uniform allowances	 6,000
These deficits have had to be covered by drawing on capital, thus depleting one of the main sources from which operating revenue is obtained.
I would urge the minister to give further consideration to increasing this grant when he is considering the estimates for next year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General-
244. General administration, $94,369.
Brooke Claxton: Perhaps we might revert to item 228.


William Ross Macdonald: Before we proceed with item 244 does the committee wish to revert to vote 228?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.
Item stands.
Welfare branch-
228. Administration, $1,961,250.


Donald Methuen Fleming: 
Brooke Claxton: When this item was before the committee before, I did endeavour to explain, to the best of my knowledge at the time, how it was arrived at. I might tell the committee that at that very moment the deputy minister of welfare was in Halifax meeting a number of representatives of welfare [DOT]organizations and some of the provincial
[The Chairman.]
officers and was actually discussing the organization of this work.
This vote is designed to cover payments not provided for in other votes for salaries but largely to be made to people outside the government services in connection with the investigation of cases where it has been reported to us, or where we have got knowledge, that the family allowance money is not being properly applied by a parent. Hon. members will appreciate that, with 1,420,233 families in receipt of family allowances, there is bound to be a number about which the information on file is not complete, so that a further investigation is required. There are also cases about which there has been a suggestion or a report that the money is not being applied for the welfare of the child. If we did not have a service to do this work I am sure hon. members would feel that we were neglectful of our duty. I think all hon. members see the necessity of having an item of this kind, and the one question really is, how much is needed for the purpose?
The basis on which the estimate was prepared-and I would recall again to hon. members the fact that estimates are prepared in November of each year-was this: the dependents' allowance board and the dependents' board of trustees were agencies of the federal government which had under administration large sums of money which were paid to dependents of members of our armed forces. At one time the figure was as high as 550,000 to 600,000 recipients. It was a large-scale operation, and there it was found necessary to investigate a considerable number of cases. The basis of payment for these investigations varied, but usually it was $3.50 for each report, plus seven cents a mile for travel necessitated in making the report. It was figured that the average cost of making reports was $5, and when the dependents' board of trustees came into existence it made a standard payment of $5 for each report. That figure was taken by the officers of the department and discussed with welfare workers and others who had expert knowledge; it was found to be a suitable figure, and in arriving at our estimates in making the arrangements which we have already made it was done on the basis of $5 a report.
The next question was, how many cases would we be likely to have? In discussions with those who had the most experience in this field, it was found that we might expect to have as many as three per cent of the total number of families about whom reports would be required each year on one ground or another. That figure was considered to be a good estimate. The dependents' allowance

Supply-Health and Welfare
board had in one year 38,000 referals, as they are called, or 7i per cent. We estimated, however, that it would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 3 or 3^ per cent. On that basis we entered into an arrangement with Nova Scotia on the 1st of November under which the province undertook to make these investigations in consideration of a payment of $5 for each report, and it received a guarantee of 81,050.


Mr. BRACKEN:: For what time?


Brooke Claxton: Per month. In Nova Scotia we are making payments to 76,473 families, and this payment of 81,050 a month represents about 3-3 per cent of the families there. On that basis we would require 8230,000 yearly for reports across Canada. The figure of 8300,000 was set down as including not only that 8230,000, but also payments that might [DOT]have to be made in connection with the administration of family allowance payments where there was no father, no mother, no children's aid society or anyone else responsible for the child. In such cases it has been found necessary to make some payment to an individual or to an agency for making a report and for handling the money, and on the basis of experience in this field it was considered that might amount to $50,000. The balance was considered as needed for administration.
When hon. members call attention to the fact, that our expenses during the year ended March 31, 1946, were only about $6,000 under this item, I would point out that these expenses were only made in respect of the province of Nova Scotia and only made for a period of four months. If you apply even that expenditure of $6,000 to Nova Scotia for the full year and then take that figure as the one which is proper for all Canada, you have to multiply the $6,000 by 50. In other words, the payment to Nova Scotia is for about one-third of the year, and it is in respect of something like one-twentieth of the population. So that, to apply the Nova Scotia payment to all of Canada for a full year we should multiply the expenditure for Nova Scotia by 50. This brings us the figure of $300,000 which we seek for this year.
Hon. members will appreciate that this is not an easy service to establish on a sound basis. We gave it careful consideration before making the agreement with Nova Scotia and did not proceed with agreements with other provinces, or undertake to set up services in other provinces, until we had gained more experience. On the basis of the experience we have, we have now made arrangements with Manitoba and British Columbia and are considering what should be done in the other
provinces. Our experience, I should tell the committee in all frankness, is that this figure of three per cent which we estimated might be the proportion of cases requiring investigation seems to us now, on the basis of our experience so far, a high estimate. It certainly will not be exceeded and we hope it will be very much reduced. I believe that the amount sought now in the estimate, in the light of this explanation, is justified in view of our lack of experience of anything that would warrant less. In other words, the figure is arrived at on the basis of past experience available. If our experience proves better than past experience, then we shall certainly not spend this sum and1 shall come back in another year and ask for less.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With all deference to the minister, the statement he has given us today has not, I suggest, contributed very much to the real information of the committee concerning the item. What the minister has said to-day has been largely a defence of the fact that he brought the item into the house in this large amount, and as to how it came about. The factors on which he has proceeded were taken into consideration seven or eight months ago, but that is not the situation with which we are dealing at the present time. It is not what was in the minds of the officials when they made up the item in November, 1945. The committee is going to consider the situation as we find it to-day. What is the situation? The fact of the matter is that, for the months of the last fiscal year during which this money was being used, a total' of $5,995 was expended. We had it from the minister on Monday last that in the first two months of this fiscal year a total of $5,000 was expended out of $300,000. But what advantage do we derive from the minister's multiplication exercise on the basis of this service being in operation in all provinces for twelve months of the year? That is not the situation that exists. The minister has sought to defend the miscalculation in the need in this respect by saying that he had an agreement with only one province in the fiscal year 1945-46. But at the present time the dominion has agreements with only three of the provinces, and they are not the largest provinces, at that. We are not told what type of investigation is planned by the dominion in respect of the provinces with which the dominion does not sign agreements. Are we to infer that this money is to be required only in the case of provinces with which the minister enters into agreements? If so, the case that the minister has made out is a case for a very small amount indeed.
May I say with all possible emphasis that the case made out to-day in substantiation of
Supply-Health and Welfare

an estimate of $300,000 is a case which, on examination, will not justify the expenditure of more than $25,000 or $50,000. We are not concerned with multiplication on the basis of a situation which does not exist; we are concerned with the situation as it exists to-day. Agreements have been made with three provinces. One-quarter of the fiscal year has passed. This investigation service has not been established in six other provinces. In the face of that the minister still asks the committee to approve the appropriation of $300,000. For my part I wish to protest against an appropriation being sought in that way.


Clarence Gillis: May I get a little information from the minister on the matter just discussed by the hon. member for Eglinton. Is he right in assuming that the investigations referred to will be carried out only in provinces where there are agreements?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not so.


Clarence Gillis: That is the whole basis of his argument.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, it is not.


Clarence Gillis: I am not quarrelling with the hon. member; I merely wish to get the record straight. The minister defends the estimate on the basis of the fact that the agreement will be extended to include all the provinces. That is what he said the other day. To-day the hon. member for Eglinton comes back and says that the appropriation is too large and that there is no agreement with six of the provinces. It is possible that there will be no agreement with Ontario and Quebec, particularly if they follow the attitude adopted at the dominion-provincial conference. As I understand it, the Family Allowances Act applies to all the children of Canada with one exception, and I shall argue that point with the minister at some future time. Whether there is an agreement with the provinces or not, I think the investigations set up by the government are necessary, and family allowances should be applicable to all provinces whether the premiers of those provinces like it or not. Am I right in assuming that?


Brooke Claxton: Certainly. I must say I can understand the attitude of the hon. member for Eglinton, but he says that the estimate is not dealing with the situation which exists to-day. The item is to cover, not the service we have to-day, but a system which is in full operation, and which we are aiming to put into full operation as soon as we can do it in a

sensible way. I must say that we are glad we did not go ahead and set up the kind of system we had in mind at one stage, which would have led to great expense, much more than $300,000. We were cautious about it and worked it out with one province. I think we gave them too high a guarantee. We do not expect to give any further guarantees.
But just take it as it is. The payment to Nova Scotia will be $12,600 per annum. Nova Scotia represents one-twentieth of the population of Canada, and we have to provide a service for all of Canada. In provinces other that Nova Scotia, Manitoba and British Columbia, we do these investigations now, in so far as they are necessary, through our own staff. But we believe that with changing conditions and the continued payment of family allowances, we ought to give a better service. We intend to give a service which will go right across Canada and which will, by one means or another, get precisely the same type of report in every part of Canada. In some provinces it will be done directly through the provincial agencies; but some provinces have not agencies of the kind which can do that work. In other provinces it will be more economical for us to make arrangements either with individual agencies directly or else even conceivably to employ personnel of the federal government. We want to do what is sensible and do the job with as little expenditure of money and as little trouble to the people as we can.
When the hon. member suggests that $25,000 or $30,000 would be enough-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I said $25,000 or $50,000.


Brooke Claxton: Yes. I have to point out that we are spending $12,600 in Nova Scotia, a province having one-twentieth of the population of Canada. With all respect, I point out that the amount mentioned by the hon. member is not enough. If we can get this service established just as quickly as we can on the basis of our experience, then we are going to need a large sum of money. How much it is I do not think anyone can tell on the basis of experience to-day. But for a full year it will be $300,000, or something in that neighbourhood. How much less than $300,000 it will be for this year I just cannot say, because it depends on how quickly we can get the job done and how cheaply we can do it. Therefore I would ask the committee to pass this vote in the light of the explanation given. To set down a lesser sum than $300,000 would be misleading. I can assure

Supply-Health and Welfare
hon. members that we shall spend just as little as we can to do the job as speedily as we can.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister has made reference to the agreements with Nova Scotia, Manitoba and British Columbia, and said that they provided for an investigation service at an agreed fee per case. I do not think he has said that that was all that the agreements provided for.


Brooke Claxton: I think that is all.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Do the agreements not go any farther than simply providing for an investigation service at a fee per case?


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The next question has to do with efforts made to negotiate agreements with the other six provinces. Would the minister tell us briefly what negotiations have been undertaken in that respect, and what progress has been made?
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 196, to consolidate and amend the acts relating to La Societe des Artisans Cana-dien-Frangais - Mr. Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont).
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Welfare branch-
228. Administration, $1,961,250.
Donald Methuen Fleming: I had asked one or two questions before six o'clock. Is the minister in a position to answer?


Brooke Claxton: 

STATISTICS BASED ON FAMILY ALLOWANCES PAYMENTS

[Stage Direction]
-	P.E.I.	N.S.	N.B.	Que.	Ont.	Man.	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.	N.W.T. and Yukon	Total1. Number of families	12,021	76,764	59,551	405,812	458,745	88,483	107,103	104,655	108,325	1,700	1,423,1592. Number of cheques issued	11,927	76,008	59,477	404,387	453,869	88,722	106,249	103,864	108,027	523	1,143,0533. Number of children	30,456	183,048	158,247	1,145,797	941,533	187,271	248,218	231,312	205,785	3,915	3,335,5824. Average children per family	2-53	2-38	2-66	2-82	205	2-12	2-32	2-21	1-90	2-30	2-345. Transfers from other provinces	47	124	96	284	746	293	402	182	626	14	2,8146. Transfers to other provinces	44	179	150	371	789	322	447	165	536	3	3,0067. Other address changes	69	1,207	620	9,960	4,396	924	1,230	952	2,716	7	22,0818. Changes to higher age group	731	4,412	3,065	27,417	17,760	3,419	4,878	4,300	3,830	223	70,0359. Percentage of monthly automatic changes..	2-40	2-41	1-94	2-39	1-89	1-82	1-96	1-86	1-86	5-70	210
t-4
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Health and Welfare

g
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE Classification of Families by number of Children, based on Family Allowances paid in June, 1946.
Province
Number of Children
i	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15Prince Edward Island	4,388	3,005	1,829	1,172	689	440	256	141	56	31	11	2	1	Nova Scotia	30,019	19,714	11,787	6,656	3,959	2,366	1,176	624	292	122	40	5	3	1	-New Brunswick	20,901	14,297	9,138	5,920	3,775	2,474	1,480	877	430	179	59	19	2	-	-Quebec	128,030	99,991	64,346	41,147	27,156	18,515	12,143	7,143	4,055	2,056	818	260	129	11	2Ontario	203,644	136,013	62,356	29,266	13,974	7,166	3,489	1,690	717	289	119	17	4	1	-Manitoba	37,865	25,911	12,547	6,115	3,145	1,495	805	363	157	53	20	5	2	-	-Saskatchewan	39,857	31,002	17,349	9,284	4,683	2,556	1,270	621	314	114	41	10	-	2	-Alberta	40,496	31,385	16,814	8,406	4,050	1,911	886	438	171	66	25	7	-	-	-British Columbia	49,156	36,877	12,728	5,712	2,197	972	397	179	76	23	6	2	-	-	-Northwest Territories and Yukon..	664	418	295	168	101	34	14	5	1	-	-	-	-	-	-Total	555,020	398,613	209,189	113,846	63,729	37,929	21,916	12,081	6,269	2,933	1,149	327	141	15	2
£
£
o
Supply-Health and Welfare

Supply-Health and Weljare
It is only right that I should say it is really a remarkable feat of the treasury officials who are primarily concerned in the preparation of this material that when the last cheque was issued from regional offices in the nine provinces on June 22, making the twelfth payment of family allowance cheques, the information should be available in this form to-night, six days later, so as to complete the record for the full year. We will, as soon as we can, relate the additional figures I have just filed to those filed with regard to the first eleven months, and issue those so as to give a complete statistical account of family allowance payments for the first year of operation.
If I might, I would make a further comment on something said this afternoon by the hon. member for Broadview. Ordinarily one would not take the time to comment on anything he might say with regard to representation at an international conference, or anything of that kind. However, in view of his remarks and the newspaper photograph he was showing, which I understood was a photograph of the Canadian delegation to the world health conference which is now being held at Hunter college in New York, I wish to say this. His references to joy rides or something of that kind might ordinarily be ignored, but on this particular occasion there were included in the Canadian delegation three distinguished doctors. I refer to Doctor Charles W. McMillan, president of the Canadian Public Health Association; Doctor T. C. Routley, executive secretary of the Canadian Medical Association, and Doctor Groulx, health officer of the city of Montreal. Everyone who knows anything about public health in Canada will recognize them as being outstanding in their fields.
These gentlemen consented to become part of the Canadian delegation. They went to New York without remuneration and arrived there before the conference began so as to become familiar with its work. They have put in long hours in loyal service to the people of Canada. I would not mention this except that I have worked with them and I feel that they might misconstrue what has been said by the hon. member for Broadview. I am sure the hon. member had no such intention. In referring to this department he stated his desire to see it become the major department in the service of the people of Canada, which I think indicates his intentions.
When conferences such as this are being held, at which representatives of Canada work with representatives of other nations to arrive at a basis of international cooperation, it is important that on technical subjects we should be able to secure the attendance of not only
representatives of the government and of the civil service of Canada but outstanding representatives of other fields of endeavour. It will not be easy for any government in Canada to secure that representation if remarks such as those that were made this afternoon are allowed to go uncontradicted.
These gentlemen are outstanding. They have worked long hours day by day through the heat of New York and they have done an outstanding job for Canada. We hope we shall be able to secure the services of equally distinguished people to assist Canada in making an effective presentation of her case at world conferences when it is our duty to attend such conferences. To serve Canada these gentlemen have sacrificed time that would have been spent on their own businesses or a well-earned holiday.
Attendance at one of these conferences is nothing in the nature of a "joy ride." Nor is it a joy ride to spend two or three days in New York and then try, during the remainder of the week, to do the work which would ordinarily be done in the whole week. It is no joy ride to work long hours with representatives of other countries, and it is no joy ride to spend yourself, as these gentlemen have been spending themselves, in the interests of their fellow Canadians and of mankind.
Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister has not told us what steps are being taken by the department in the absence of agreements with the other six provinces with reference to investigations. I would ask him to tell us briefly of the plan he is following in provinces with whose governments there is no agreement.


Brooke Claxton: I believe I said this afternoon, perhaps not sufficiently fully, that in each province we have a regional office which has to do with family allowance administration, and in those offices are a number of people who deal with these cases. In Prince Edward Island most of the. cases have been dealt with by Major Nicholson, the regional director. In the larger provinces welfare supervisors have been appointed and these investigations are made by permanent employees under their direction. We are assisted greatly by the voluntary work of representatives of children's aid societies, welfare organizations, churches, municipalities and other bodies. So far, this voluntary assistance has enabled us to do part of the job, but as we go along we shall either make arrangements with the provinces that have welfare organizations or engage our own staff to complete the picture so as to give service in every part of Canada.


John Oliver Probe: On May 31 when the estimates of this department were before us the hon
Supply-Health and Welfare

member for Yorkton brought to the minister's attention, what looked like a case of maldistribution in departmental personnel across the country. He pointed out that of 197 persons in one branch of the department there was only one stationed) in Saskatchewan, a province that is trying to take large forward steps in the field in which the minister is interested. We have in Saskatchewan one-half of one per cent of the staff doing this type of work throughout the dominion, for a population totalling seven per cent of the country as a whole. That does not suggest a fair distribution of the department's personnel.
I cannot find fault with the Minister's explanation to the hon. member for Yorkton, but his reply made me curious about the staff in Regina which handles family allowances. I happen to know a number of the persons employed in that branch and I can say that many of them have not had previous experience in national health and welfare work. I presume they have been selected for their administrative qualities.
The details of this item show an amount of only $63,270 for the permanent staff in the family allowances division, while $774,480 is being provided for temporary assistance and $225,000 for what is called casual labour. Is provision to be made in the future for a larger proportion of permanent employees? It seems to me that we have too much of the temporary and casual type of help in a large number of departments. The establishments are not sufficiently well organized that permanent employees can be appointed after examination by the civil service commission. Would the minister give the number of persons employed by his department at Regina, both permanent and temporary employees, together with any recent figures he has on the employment of casual labour?


Brooke Claxton: The number of employees in the health branch of the department in Saskatchewan is four on a permanent basis and ten on a temporary basis, making a total of fourteen. In the welfare branch, all related to family allowance administration, there are thirty-eight temporaries, and the establishment of that regional office is forty-five.
As I have explained before, and as hon. members know, in a department which is just being set up the practice is to create almost all positions as temporary until it is found that they are really necessary to do the job. Then they are made permanent positions and permanent appointments are made to those posts. The reason why we have a considerable number of casual assistants was that in undertaking the work of registration and verification of families for the family allowance we had to deal right at the outset with all the children

in Canada under sixteen years of age, that is with sixteen years of children, whereas once the system gets going we have only to deal with the children bom each year. In other words, the administrative problem at first was one of dealing with something like sixteen times the normal load.


John Oliver Probe: Did not the women's voluntary services assist considerably in that work?


Brooke Claxton: Very much so. But as I was going on to say, in order not to create a permanent establishment very much larger than was necessary to do the job, we employed people in every regional office on a casual basis, as it is called. The hon. member for Regina City has referred to the great help given by various agencies, particularly women's voluntary services in the different capitals of the provinces of Canada during the time of registration, and I myself have already referred to that in previous discussions of this subject. We were very fortunate to secure in every province the assistance of large numbers of women volunteers to assist in the preliminary work of opening envelopes, sorting applications and doing the preliminary processing of them. The number of people who assisted in that way was several thousand. Had it not been for that assistance it would have been difficult indeed to begin payments as we did on July 18, 1945. Once the preliminary *work of processing applications was done, however, we did not look to voluntary assistance any further. But again I pay tribute to the great help we received in that way.


John Oliver Probe: There is another feature I would mention. In some of the offices casual labour in certain age groups is employed which perhaps is not entirely justified by labour market conditions. For instance, a person was employed who was seventy-eight years old, and another was drawing the children's allowance while employed by the department, if my information is correct. I think some regard to age should be paid in taking on even casual assistants. I presume that all those appointed to the temporary staff in the Regina city office have qualified by passing civil service examinations?


Brooke Claxton: That is right. As to casual assistants, if the hon. member has any names or suggestions as to people who are not efficient, I shall be glad to have them. But at the time when this job was undertaken more than a year ago it was not so much a question of selection as it was of getting almost anyone who could do almost any kind of work at all. Gradually the staff has been worked into a pretty coherent whole and it is doing a good job.

Supply-Health and Welfare


John Oliver Probe: I presume the fact that one of the casual assistants was receiving the children's allowance in her own behalf would not be a bar to employment?


Brooke Claxton: No.


John Oliver Probe: What about the employment of persons in the very senior age group, say a person of seventy-eight?


Brooke Claxton: I must say that I have never heard of anyone who was seventy-eight in any civil service position.


John Oliver Probe: I should like to discuss that with the minister some time.


Brooke Claxton: Hon. members know it is difficult for some of those who are sixty-five years of age or so to secure appointment to any position in which there is any competition at all, because of the retirement at age sixty-five rule which ordinarily applies.


George Hugh Castleden: Would the minister put on the record the numbers on the temporary and permanent staffs for Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia for the two branches of his department?


Clarence Gillis: Why not make a job of it and give the figures for all of Canada.


Brooke Claxton: With the consent of the committee I shall be very glad to do that.


William Ross Macdonald: Has the minister unanimous consent?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Brooke Claxton: This table shows the staff distribution by permanents and temporaries as at March 31, 1946. I gave a figure of thirty-eight a little while ago as the total of permanents and temporaries for Saskatchewan. That was as of March 15, 1946. The figure in the table for March 31, 1946, is thirty-six, showing a decline of two in the total staff in those two weeks. I should make this further explanation, that the table includes the total staff of the department. The figures for the welfare branch include the headquarters staff and the staff additional to that engaged on family allowance. In all the provinces the figures for the welfare staff are the staff exclusively engaged on family allowance administration. We have no welfare staff in any province beyond that engaged in family allowance administration.
(Table appears on next page.)


Donald Methuen Fleming: On another aspect of this item, it will be recalled that at page 2764 of Hansard, the minister, in dealing with costs of
administration of family allowances, included costs from three departments:	his own,
$1,850,000; Department of Public Works, $80,000; treasury, $1,944,000; or a total of S3,874,000, including $636,000 for postage paid by the treasury on family allowance cheques. I should like to ask the minister if that is a complete summation in all respects of the cost of administration. Is there no cost, for instance, in the Department of National Revenue in connection with the adjustment in respect of income tax exemptions? Is there any cost in the Department of Trade and Commerce, either there or through payments made to the provinces, in connection with vital statistics information and birth certificates? Is there any expense in connection with the administration of the Department of Mines and Resources on family allowance work-or in any other department?


Brooke Claxton: With regard to the Department of National Revenue, that is not an expense against family allowance administration. There is, as the hon. member knows, a pay-back by some of the recipients of family allowances on account of the adjustment between income tax and family allowances, but there is no additional cost of family allowance administration there. With regard to the Department of Trade and Commerce, in respect of the vital statistics branch of the dominion bureau of statistics, all the items which relate to family allowances are paid for out of the family allowance vote. We make a payment to the dominion bureau of statistics for the services they render in this connection. With regard to Mines and Resources, in connection with family allowance payments to Indians and Eskimos, there is no additional payment. We have at Ottawa a regional office of family allowances dealing with family allowance payments for the northwest territories and the Yukon, and we there record the registrations, verify the births and issue the payments. It is of course possible that the burden on the Mines and Resources staff has been increased by reason of the fact that they have to help in the administration of family allowances payable to Indians and Eskimos in the northwest territories and the Yukon and also in other parts of Canada. They have assigned one of their officers to act as liaison officer in this connection, but he was previously an employee of the department. Consequently there is no additional expense in Mines and Resources, identifiable as such, though possibly it could be worked out that some part of the overhead of the department might be applicable to this extra work.
IMr. Claxton.]
co
o



STAFF DISTRIBUTION BY PERMANENTS AND TEMPORARIES AS AT MARCH 31, 1946.

[Stage Direction]
Branch	Head- quarters	Over- seas	P.E.I.	N.S.	N.B.	Que.	Ont.	Man.	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.	Yukon and N.W.T.	Total
Administration-													41
	110												110
Total	151	151Health-	105	5	27	11	19	29	14	4	9	45	4	272Temporary	,	152	6	47	10	24	17	53	10	21	104	11	455Total	257	11	74	21	43	46	67	14	30	149	15	727Welfare-	13 28	3	2	8	10	5	3	3	47Temporary	35	20	113	131	37	36	37	27	473
Total		41		9	38	22	121	141	42	36	40	30		520
													
Total-	159	5	30	13	27	39	19	4	12	48	4 11	360 1,038Temporary	290	6	9	82	30	137	148	90	46	58	131	449	11	9	112	43	164	187	109	50	70	179	15	1,398
o
g
g
o

co
Supply-Health and Welfare

Supply-Health and Welfare
Donald Methuen Fleming: Has any thought been given to compensating the private welfare agencies for the additional work which has been cast upon them in the course of administering family allowances? I am thinking in particular of children's aid societies. Undoubtedly in the administration of family allowances through these societies there has been a great deal of extra expense incurred by them, and it would be only fair that they should receive some compensation for their extra work.
I have before me an extract from the report of the Children's Aid Society of the city of Toronto for the year ended September 30, 1945. Mr. Mills, the general superintendent, after speaking approvingly of the recent increase of 14 a month in the rate for the foster homes made possible by the family allowances, said in his report to the annual meeting that, "other than this, the family allowances have brought little, if any, relief to our funds, as they are deposited in a trust fund for each child, expenditures from which are required for additional benefits. The bookkeeping and other services in connection with the allowances are colossal and especially embarrassing at a time of acute shortage of both clerical help and office staff." May I ask the minister if any thought has been given to trying to assist in easing the burden of cost on these welfare organizations?


Brooke Claxton: I should like to say that the department and the family allowance administration have the closest and most cordial relations with all welfare agencies throughout Canada, and particularly the children's aid societies, and I should like to link with them the name of Mr. Robert Mills, who has been particularly cooperative. The question the hon. member raises is one which has been put to us by the children's aid societies, and it has received a great deal of consideration and has been the subject of discussion with them. We think that, w'hereas it is pretty clear that the administrative costs of the societies have gone up owing to their being so useful in connection with family allowance administration, on the other hand the charges on the funds of the societies must have been relieved directly or indirectly, by an offsetting amount. This, I may assure the hon. member, is receiving consideration and will continue to do so. It would be difficult to work out a scale of payments, and our view so far is that what has been added to administrative expenses has been more than offset by the benefits to the wards of the children's aid societies themselves.


Donald Methuen Fleming: One further question. The family allowance regulations, as I understand it, were passed in part under the authority of
the War Measures Act. Has the authority given by the Family Allowances Act itself been exercised in connection with the regulations promulgated in relation to family allowances?


Brooke Claxton: I was not aware of the fact that any part of the family allowances regulations was passed under the War Measures Act. The preamble to the regulations does not refer to the War Measures Act. The operative part of the order in council, which was passed on August 3, 1945, P.C. 5093, reads:
His Excellency in Council, on the same recommendation and under the authority of the Family Allowances Act, 1944, is further pleased to make the family allowances regulations hereto annexed and they are hereby made and established accordingly.
Further, the regulations which were adopted under order in council dated November 6,
1945,	P.C. 6588, refer again to-
. . . the authority of the Family Allowances Act, 1944.
Finally, the regulations adopted on June 7,
1946,	by P.C. 2316 refer again to-
. . . the authority of the Family Allowances Act.
So that I do not know of any regulations whatever adopted under the War Measures Act.


Clarence Gillis: I should like to get a little further information on the question as to where the children's aid society fits into the mechanics of the provincial organization administering the act, I understand that there is a head office in Halifax.


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


Clarence Gillis: In the rest of the community, wdiat machinery has been established that is directly under the control of and paid for by the department, directed by the Halifax office? The children's aid society is kept up largely by a grant from the provincial government, is it not?


Brooke Claxton: I do not know about that.


Clarence Gillis: And the function they now perform across the country is that of carrying on the work of investigation about w'hich the minister was speaking. The federal government, by agreement, is paying Nova Scotia $5 for each report submitted by whoever is making the investigation, and if that is true and children's aid societies are used in the communities to carry out investigations, and there is not much travel involved, I think $5 per report is of considerable assistance to the organization. Personally, I think that, while these voluntary organizations may be doing some useful service, that kind of thing is not satisfactory. If the federal government under-
Supply-Health and Welfare

takes to pass a statute laying down certain regulations it should be responsible for the administration of the machinery and should have adequate staffs in each province to carry out the work. I do not think that any voluntary organization, no matter how honest or sincere it may be, has either the time or the facilities to do the kind of job that should be done. I recognize that the department started this thing and has made very good progress, and it is necessary to use various agencies because of shortage of man-power and woman-power. But in the final analysis, this being a permanent act, it will have to be administered by permanent officials. To have this work done by people who are on the job eight or nine hours a day doing their own work and who then try to carry on with other work in the evening or on an afternoon when they happen to be off duty is a method that does not make for efficiency. I should like to have the minister outline the mechanics in Nova Scotia, from the head office into the community, explaining how he gets the report back and exactly what part the children's aid society plays in the administration of the act in the province.


Brooke Claxton: I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Cape Breton South. The set-up w'ith regard to the family allowance administration in Nova Scotia is this. Family allowances come under the director of family allowances, who is located in Ottawa, and there are nine provincial offices. In Nova Scotia, as in the other provinces, the provincial office is located in the capital of the province. When the family allowance office there receives an application for registration which may not give satisfactory information and this cannot be obtained by correspondence, which is the ordinary method used first, or if a report is received from one source or another indicating that someone is not applying the money for the benefit of the child, then in either event, the family allowance administration, under the arrangement worked out with the province of Nova Scotia, sends a request for a report on the matter. That is sent to the welfare department of Nova Scotia. That department then gets a report either through its own employees or through the children's aid society, if there is one in the locality. Not all the territory of Nova Scotia is covered by children's aid societies.
The hon. member suggested that we should have our own officers in every part of Canada to do this job. There is a lot to be said for that; but had we started to do it in that way and had set up that scheme back in July, 1945, we would have found it exceedingly difficult to get adequate staff and there would
[Mr. Gillis.l
have been a great tendency to have at least one inspector for each electoral division across Canada. That would have been an easy way to deal with the matter administratively. It is followed in the case of the census and other things and that would have been the natural pattern. Moreover, that kind of set-up would not have been out of line with our own preliminary estimates of the need. Had we done that, I feel that, so far as we can see the need now, we would have spent a lot of money that we did not need to spend. We are still looking at the whole problem-that is what the hon. member wants us to do-and as I explained earlier to-day we hope to have an adequate service for every part of Canada worked out in the best possible way for that particular part and at the lowest possible cost to the people of Canada.


Clarence Gillis: I do not want the minister to think I am critical of what has been done in Nova Scotia. He has there one of the most efficient set-ups in the dominion. They have done a marvellous job in the short time they have functioned. I have not received a complaint in any form, and I have had much to do with the Halifax office. It is, in my opinion, one of the most efficient offices the government has set up.


Brooke Claxton: I am glad to hear that.


Clarence Gillis: My point, however, is that I am a stickler for permanent officials where there is a permanent act to be administered. Under those conditions I do not believe in voluntary effort.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and Reconversion - National Health and Welfare-
572. *-Old age pensions and pensions to the blind, $9,274,050.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Is the minister able to give the committee any hope that within a reasonable length of time the age limit for the reception of pensions by our aged folks will be reduced from seventy to sixty-five, and can he say whether the amount given to the old age pensioner will be raised to a living allowance?


Brooke Claxton: When this item came up in the main estimates I did refer to the dominion government's proposals to the dominion-provincial conference. I do not think hon. members would wish me to refer to it again. In his budget speech last night the Minister of Finance dealt with the policy of the dominion government with regard to social security measures. Hon. members will find that in Hansard for yesterday at page

Supply

Health and Welfare
2992, where the attitude of the government is stated. In supplementing the answer, I might say that some time ago the Minister of Finance, who was then administering old age pensions, expressed the willingness on the part of the federal government to consider reductions in the age limit, quite apart from the dominion-provincial proposals. I cannot add much more except to say that, as I stated earlier in the week, we have arranged to call a conference of the interprovincial committee on old age pensions, which we suggest should meet at Ottawa on September 16. It is not intended that the committee should deal with fundamental questions of policy, but with the application of the regulations as they exist.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister is aware that in England, New Zealand and Australia the age limit of men and women for the receipt of old age pensions is much lower than it is in Canada. I believe it is sixty-five for men and sixty for women. Hon. members are frequently asked by pensioners and those who are anticipating receiving pensions if and when Canada is to be put in a position to do what other countries are doing in that regard.


Brooke Claxton: 
John Ritchie MacNicol: What is going into effect?


Brooke Claxton: The measure which has been adopted and which is now going into effect.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In Canada?


Brooke Claxton: In the United Kingdom. That, of course, is on a contributory basis. It is included in the total social insurance contribution which is paid by practically the whole population.
In Australia they have a means-test plan under which pensions are payable to males at age sixty-five and to females at age sixty. The pension is 32s. 6d. per week, or $5.77 at the current rates of exchange. It is payable out of the welfare fund to which there is a substantial contribution paid by individuals. It is 7% per cent on incomes of most individuals and it is payable in respect of incomes over $360.
In New Zealand there is a dual system; one payable without a means test to males and females at the age of sixty-five, and a means-test plan payable to males and females at the age of sixty. It is going to take some
time to put both plans into effect. There again, it is payable out of a social security fund, to which individuals pay 7% per cent on their total incomes from the first dollar.
In the United States there is a plan of survivors' insurance, payable without means test to men and women at the age of sixty-five. The amount payable is related to the average wage. About three-fifths of the gainfully employed people are covered and the employers and employees each contribute one per cent on the first $3,000 of wages.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The first $3,000?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Not very many workingmen in Canada get $3,000 a year.


Brooke Claxton: The employer and the employee each contributes one per cent on the first S3,000 of wages, so that practically everyone who is gainfully employed contributes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I do not understand the minister. Does he mean $3,000 a year?


Brooke Claxton: Yes, up to $3,000.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Not very many Canadian workmen get $3,000 per year.


Brooke Claxton: The employer and the employee each contributes one per cent on the first S3,000 of wages. If a man earns $2,000 he pays one per cent. He pays one per cent on anything up to $3,000 of wages. If he earns $1,500 he pays one per cent.
In the United States there is a plan in effect whereby the federal government contributes to the state governments' provisions for old age assistance on a means-test basis to males and females over sixty-five. That is payable to needy aged. All together in all these four English-speaking countries, in respect of which there is a comparable standard of living, there is an old age pension plan, and all four of them are on a contributory basis.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Has the minister the situation in respect of South Africa?


Brooke Claxton: I have not that before me. My recollection is that they are working on a new plan there.


Donald Methuen Fleming: My question has to do with items 572 to 580 inclusive under demobilization and reconversion on page 72 of the estimates. We have nine items that fall under the Department of National Health and Welfare, followed by three which relate to the national film board. The nine items total some $9,500,000 and, with the additional amount for the national film board, the total is practically $10,500,000. Having regard to the statement made in the house last year by

Supply-Health and Welfare
the government as to its intention to eliminate the demobilization and reconversion items from the estimates as soon as possible, why has it not been found possible to group these items with the items in the regular estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare? I should like to know if this is merely temporary and, if so, what the particular reason for it is.


Brooke Claxton: Much the biggest item in the items referred to by the hon. member for Eglinton is the item covered by vote 572, old age pensions and pensions to the blind. This was introduced by order in council passed under the War Measures Act in 1942 and was designed to provide, in respect of old age pensions, something corresponding to the cost of iiving bonus. As I announced earlier this week, it is the intention of the government to bring in legislation at this session to put that change in the Old Age Pensions Act on a permanent basis.
The next item is for the treatment of' Canadian fishermen and seamen. That is to provide for payments for the cost of treatment required by persons employed on ships of Canadian registiy and seamen of Canadian citizenship sailing on vessels of any of the allied nations. That has been carried on, and it will not be continued beyond the period of reconversion.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What does the minister construe as the period of reconversion?


Brooke Claxton: Treatment may be claimed within a period of twelve months after the end of the war, and for injuries or illnesses originating prior to January 1, 1946.
Item 574 is a similar item. It is to provide treatment for non-resident merchant seamen while awaiting deportation, such deportation being impossible for the time being owing to shipping conditions, or to conditions in their countries of origin. So that, too, will totally disappear within the same period. It is decreased S10.000 from last year.
Item 575 is to provide a health unit at Prince Rupert, British Columbia. This is an amount of S4,080 furnished to the city of Prince Rupert to pay the salary of a medical officer whom the armed forces found it desirable to have at that point during the war. The amount of $2,040 will, we anticipate, be sufficient to cover the fiscal year, and there will be no continuation after that.
Item 576 covers health services in Halifax. This is an annual amount to assist the city of Halifax in maintaining and improving health conditions. Hon. members are aware of the fact that Halifax had an enormous
[Mr. Fleming. 1
increase in population, not only members of the armed forces, but also merchant seamen during the war. It was found essential to improve health services in connection with sanitation and so on durmg the war. This was a place where the increase in demand was peculiarly brought about by war conditions. Consequently this payment was provided for. It is a decrease from the amount which was previously paid. In 1945-46 the amount was 866,743.72, and it will stop this year.
Items 577 and 578 relate to payments for the chloramination of water systems at these points on the Pacific coast. During the years 1942-43 it was found necessary, to meet the requirements of our own armed forces and those of our allies, and the naval and merchant shipping, to instal chloramination systems in these localities. The cost of installation was borne by the federal government. The cost of operating the installation was also borne by the federal government. We have .now worked out with all the localities arrangements under which the federal government will not carry on the cost in any event after the end of the present fiscal year.
In three cases the localities are acquiring chloramination plants from War Assets Corporation on terms which seem to be fair, and our obligations in this respect will totally end at the end of the calendar year.
Item 579 deals with the treatment of repatriated merchant seamen. This is an amount of $5,000 to provide treatment for those repatriated merchant seamen who have been prisoners of war, and not otherwise entitled to treatment. There was a provision, as hon. members know, for the treatment of deep-sea sailors and interprovincial sailors, under the Canada Shipping Act. This provides similar treatment for those sailors who were unfortunate enough to be taken prisoners of war. It will certainly terminate at the end of this year.
The final item in this category is No. 580, for the women's voluntary services. This is an amount of $7,000. During the war the Department of National War Services had a women's voluntary services division which'did good work in organizing women across Canada to perform voluntary services. That division was transferred to the Department of National Health and Welfare not long ago. We anticipate that its work will not be continued by the department. We regard it as peculiarly a wartime activity, and our thought is that the functions which were hitherto carried on by that branch might more properly be carried on by voluntary organizations. This item of $7,000 is put in to cover the expenditure necessary on this division, pending its probable liquidation.

Supply-Health and Welfare
Altogether, items 572 to 580 amount to a total of $137,080, apart from the old age pensions provision. We anticipate that no part of these expenditures will be carried on after the end of the present fiscal year. These are definitely expenditures on demobilization and reconversion.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Without reference to items 572 to 580 inclusive, I take it that they are to provide for services which owe their origin to orders in council. This, I understand, will be the last year when such items will be found under the heading of demobilization and reconversion?


Brooke Claxton: That is correct.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Hereafter, if there are any services of a similar nature, they will be provided for in the ordinary votes?


Brooke Claxton: Completely correct.


Mr. PEARKES:: Could the minister say with what three of the six areas indicated in items 577 and 578 agreements have been made?


Brooke Claxton: Nanaimo, Victoria and Prince Rupert have so far made arrangements of that kind.


Thomas Reid: What is the position regarding chloramination for the cities of Vancouver and New Westminster? There was some controversy a number of years ago, and I am wondering if assistance is still being carried on. I believe the Greater Vancouver water district wanted to get rid of chloramination. Has the minister any information on the point, now that the heat has died down?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not around here.


Brooke Claxton: The situation regarding the Greater Vancouver district as last reported to me is that there was an agreement dated December 15, 1942, under which the federal government installed the plant and paid the cost of operation. The approximate yearly cost of operating the equipment was $30,460. We have worked out with the municipality an agreement under which the federal responsibility for the operation cost will be ended as of March 31, 1946. With regard to the district of North Vancouver the situation is approximately the same. The agreement was dated February 18, 1943, and was terminated on March 31, 1946, by mutual arrangement. The approximate yearly cost of operating the equipment was $2,170.


Thomas Reid: A short time ago the minister referred to some conference which was to take place this fall with regard to amending the old age pensions regulations. Last evening the Minister of Finance stated that letters had gone out to the provinces asking if they 63260-191
were willing to agree to certain suggestions made by the dominion government. If a province is willing to accede to the request of the dominion government, will that permit it to come in under any social security scheme such as was outlined at the dominion-provincial conference?


Brooke Claxton: I think the hon. member will find his answer in the statement of the Minister of Finance as reported at pages 2907 and 2908 of Hansard.


Mr. SKEY:: Does the minister propose abandoning the whole scheme of old age pensions proposed at the dominion-provincial conference?


Brooke Claxton: At the dominion-provincial conference in August, 1945, the dominion government put forward a comprehensive programme for full employment, high national income and social security. The implementing of that programme is dependent upon agreements with the provinces, and those agreements have not been achieved. The present situation is as outlined by the Minister of Finance.


Mr. HARKNESS:: The minister stated, when dealing with the item of $9,274,050 for old age pensions and pensions to the blind, that this was definitely a matter of demobilization and reconversion.


Brooke Claxton: If I gave that impression I certainly did not mean it and I do not see how any one could possibly take it from what I said. I said that that item would be carried into permanent legislative form by an amendment to the Old Age Pensions Act which we propose to introduce at this session to do just that thing. At that time that item will disappear.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I understood the minister to say that it was definitely a matter of demobilization and reconversion, but if he says that it is not I am satisfied. Something was said about the age limit for pensions for the blind and I am sorry I did not get what the minister said. Is the present age limit for pensions to blind persons to be continued? [ could never see how any age limit was justified. A person who is blind is handicapped whether he is ten, fifteen, twenty, thirty or eighty years of age.


Brooke Claxton: In its proposals to the provinces the federal government proposed that the pension of S30 a month to the blind should be payable to all blind persons who could qualify from the age of twenty-one years. In other words, we proposed to reduce the age from forty to twenty-one years, and increase the amount which might be paid from

Supply-Health and Welfare

$25 to $30. We also proposed to provide half the cost of treating those whose blindness might be prevented or cured by treatment. As the Minister of Finance declared, the social security programme of the federal government remains part of the policy of this government, but how and when it can be implemented will depend upon the willingness of the provinces to work out agreements.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: When the minister answered my question a moment ago I believe he tied in his answer with the fact that he did not propose to go any farther with dominion-provincial agreements because the dominion-provincial conference had been adjourned. I cannot see why provisions for old age pensions could not be dealt with at a separate conference. Also, I cannot see how a taxation agreement between a province and the Dominion of Canada could be related to an old age pension agreement which might be arrived at. Will the minister correct me if I am wrong?


Brooke Claxton: It must be within the knowledge of everyone who has studied old age pensions-and most hon. members have- that old age pensions are paid either on a means-test basis or as of right. The proposals made to the provinces provided for a payment of $30 a month to everyone at the age of seventy as of right, and payments of half the cost of pensions up to $30 a month in respect to people between the ages of sixty-five and sixty-nine based on a means test.
I think I am right in saying that in every countiy where a pension is payable as of right it is paid by virtue of contributions made by the individual, either in the form of a social security tax such as that of 7J per cent as is imposed in Australia and New Zealand, or in the form of payments out of wages as is the case in the United Kingdom, or in the form of a one per cent payroll deduction paid by the employer and employee as is the case in the United States. Our old age pension proposal was part of a comprehensive set of proposals, and it will be found that the proposals made to the provinces in August, 1945, contemplated a contributory old age pension scheme.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: What amount was it anticipated' would be paid by the individual?


Brooke Claxton: That was never definitely arrived at. It was discussed, and the kind of discussion was-I hope I am not revealing confidences, but this has been spread around a good deal-that there should be a social security tax of something in the neighbourhood of three or four or even five per cent.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: On income?	.


Brooke Claxton: Yes. We have given every possible consideration to this question of old age pensions, and I must say I do not see how the federal government can pay old age pensions which will be contributed to by the people except on a nation-wide basis. It is difficult to see how it could be done without either a constitutional amendment or by agreement with the provinces. I am not expressing any final opinion on that, but that is the view we have after the consideration we have given to it. If that is so, and I believe it is so, I do not see how we can have a system of old age pensions such as the hon. member seems to have in mind except on the basis that all the pensions are paid out of consolidated revenue. If the hon. member wants to propose that as the attitude of his party, it is an interesting point of view, but I do not think he does.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I am only seeking information.


Brooke Claxton: The Minister of Finance in his budget speech last night referred to this as one of the social security measures which the federal government had as part of its pro-gamme, but we cannot work it out in the existing situation. We hope to work it out just as soon as it is possible to do so.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Have the provinces been approached to see whether they would agree to this tax of three or four or five per cent as the case may be? What is to prevent the minister from going to the provinces and asking them if they are opposed to this social security tax being imposed? It does not enter into the general taxation agreement picture at all so far as I can see.


Brooke Claxton: Perhaps I should have said a word on that in answer to the hon. member for Trinity. In our view these things cannot be separated. If you are to have a budget which provides for $150,000,000 for health insurance, $200,000,000 for old age pensions of $30 a month at the age of seventy for everyone, a 50 per cent contribution by the federal government to the cost of old age pensions between the ages of sixty-five and sixty-nine for those needing it, at a minimum cost of $17,000,000, plus the dominion assumption of unemployment assistance at a rate of 85 per cent of the amount payable under the unemployment insurance provisions now in force, plus health grants which may run from $13,000,000 to $19,000,000, all in addition to the family allowance and the present unemployment insurance provisions, and on top of all that the provisions regarding public investment contained in the dominion government proposals, then I say you have a programme

Supply-Health and Welfare
which can be made to work and which is workable and comprehensive. But there is no way that I know of, of assuming responsibility for carrying out that programme unless the rest of the dominion government proposals are substantially agreed to. Any government should hive the power to discharge its responsibilities.


John Bracken: You have power to impose this tax now.


Brooke Claxton: Yes, I will correct what I said. There is no restriction on the legislative jurisdiction of the federal government with regard to taxation, but there is, I think, a real desire on the part of the people of Canada to see that the dominion and the provinces work together so that these things may be worked out through cooperation and agreement, as we had hoped and still hope they will be, rather than in any other way.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: It is interesting to hear the minister talk all around the question and give some kind of analysis of last night's budget. But the fact remains that the social security measures of the dominion, which he says cannot now be undertaken, are to be paid for by a tax of three or four or five per cent on all incomes. There was no kick from the provinces over putting unemployment insurance into force. That is something that carries itself, and the dominion government went to the provinces and got permission to institute unemployment insurance. Is there anything to prevent the minister or the government from going to the provinces at this time and asking them whether they would like to have these social security measures put into force? The minister just skated around the whole question. Just because the dominion government cannot get its whole social security programme through now, it is going to deprive the people of Canada of what could go into force at the present time. There is no use in the minister talking like that. It just does not make sense. The dominion government has power now to impose this tax of three or four or five per cent and put these social security measures into force. So that it has no excuse for not going on with these measures if they are considered advisable. If the government considers them advisable, why not go ahead with them and get permission from the provinces to do so, get the consent of the provinces. I do not think they will kick about it. But certainly that has nothing to do with the general framework of taxation in this country.


Brooke Claxton: I should like to traverse the hon. member's remarks as flatly and directly as I possibly can. Any item which requires the expenditure of 8200,000,000 a year 63260-1911
has a good deal to do with the general economic structure of this country. I shall not try to add anything to what has been said before, what was said by the Minister of Finance last night and what is contained in the dominion government proposals.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: The discussion has been most interesting. The fact remains that the dominion government made the largest social security commitments that ever were made in this country without ever consulting anyone. If they are prepared to go to the provinces now, they are going after the commitments have already been made, and asking the provinces to agree to something which the government have already done.


Brooke Claxton: If the hon. member and the committee will look at the text of the dominion government proposals, at the speeches from the throne in which they were first anticipated in January, 1944, and referred to in January, 1945, at the speeches of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and myself, I venture to say that they will find no place where it was not clearly stated that this was a comprehensive plan and that the dominion government was prepared to go forward with it, upon our working out the arrangements with the provinces. You will find that stated again and again in the documents to which I have referred. That was made perfectly plain.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Are you going to say you consulted the provinces before you introduced family allowances?


Brooke Claxton: There was no need for us to consult the provinces before introducing family allowances.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: That is a large measure to *which you committed yourselves.


Brooke Claxton: But if we had had family allowances on a contributory basis I do not see how we could have done it without consulting the provinces or securing an amendment of the constitution. That is the fundamental difference between the position with regard to what we did for family allowances and what was proposed to be done regarding old age pensions provided that we got an agreement with the provinces.
What was the purpose of the conference in August, 1945? It was to consult the provinces. Did we have to consult the provinces before we put forward a proposal? What we got them together for was to consult them, and we had that consultation at the conferences from August, 1945, on. I do not think hon. members would wish any government to
Supply-Health and Welfare

say to another government, "Before we even discuss a thing with you, have we your permission to discuss it?"


Wilfrid Garfield Case: But you did it on unemployment insurance.


Brooke Claxton: We did exactly what we did here; that is, we called them in to consult them. That is what we did in regard to old age pensions, health insurance and the whole of the dominion proposals. The purpose of the conference was to consult them, and we had that consultation.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: The question we originally asked with regard to old age pensions was, is the minister seeking any arrangement or agreement with the provinces separately with regard to old age pensions? I still cannot see why he cannot seek a separate agreement with them, or call a conference of the health ministers with regard to this subject and have them go back and ask their governments whether they are in favour of having such a social security tax as he spoke of earlier in his remarks. Just in case I may be misunderstood, I should like to put myself on record as being heartily in favour of old age pensions on a much, more liberal scale than .830 a month.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: I have been very much interested in the comments of the Progressive [DOT]Conservative party, particularly having in .mind the comments made by their financial *critic last night following the presentation of the budget by the Minister of Finance. He emphasized again and again that now is the time to economize.


James Arthur Ross: What about false economy?


Mr. MERRITT:: Are you for or against old age pensions?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I made my position quite clear, that I am in favour of them.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Then why attack us?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The Conservative party stubbornly opposed the introduction of old age pensions in the first place.


John Ritchie MacNicol: You are just talking through your hat. I was here in 1930 and was one of the supporters and advocates of the whole business.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: 
Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Do not try to lift yourselves on our shoulders. Go after the government yourself.
Mr. SKEY": Are you in opposition here, or are you for the government?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am just drawing attention to the fact that we are hearing a great deal said about old age pensions by people who did very little about the matter when they were in a position to do so.


James Arthur Ross: Your party will never be put in that position.


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I should like to say to the minister that I think nearly 200,000 old age pensioners in Canada will be disappointed with the speech of the Minister of Finance last night-


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Now you are saying something.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: -and the minister's statement to-night. I cannot think that even though it did take $200 million a year to provide $30 for all the old age pensioners in Canada, as was suggested in the dominion proposals to the provinces, that should stop the government of Canada from making this gesture to the people in those brackets. When the family allowance proposal was brought down the expenditure was larger than this, and there have been very few criticisms across the country about that expenditure. Taking into account Canada's contribution during the war, when one considers that more than a million of our young people were in the services, that we gave away over four billion dollars worth of our materials in the form of mutual aid, and that we enjoyed a higher standard of living than ever before in the histoiy of Canada, I think it is unfortunate that the minister is not in a position to say to-night that something more definite will be done this year for the old age pensioners of the country.


Thomas Langton Church: The city of Toronto had old age pensions twenty or thirty years before there was ever a C.C.F. party. It paid $12 a week, when it could get no federal or provincial aid, to those who were unable to work, and in addition it maintained a contributory system in the fire department, the police department, the school board and other departments. The principle of this old age pension and health legislation is that we are to consult the provinces. People are dying every' day while the government are consulting the provinces about health and old age pensions, and nothing can stop it, because the undertaker is there while all these consultations are going on.

Supply-Health and Welfare
Sooner or later we as a parliament must do something for these people, and at the same time have some check on departmental expenditures. Departments are spending money like water; yet we see no improvement in public health; the old age pensioners are not getting fair treatment, and they are subject to a means test which is the meanest thing ever created in the history of the country.


John Horne Blackmore: I thought it would not be very long before the chickens of the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario would be coming home to roost. I do not know when the Conservatives will learn to stop talking about "economy" in an age when we want anything but economy as far as expenditures on public services are concerned. I am not criticizing the Conservative members particularly, except that I do hope that they will begin to see the light after a while. I do not believe there is one item which has been presented in this house which the Conservatives have not been as eager to extend to those concerned as have the members of the C.C.F., the Social Credit, or the Liberal party. They have been eager to have better prices for farm commodities, better wages and all that sort of thing. To get up after that and talk about the need for economy is so grossly inconsistent that they make themselves ridiculous. The colleagues of the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario should really take him off into his room some time and give him a fatherly talking to.
What I rose to say was this. It must be obvious to the members of the committee that the minister has succeeded pretty well in talking himself into a state of helplessness. In effect he says, here are these provinces; if they would only come and cooperate with the dominion we would be able to pay all these things we want to pay, but they won't. So this big powerful Canada with its wonderful resources, and this great big Ottawa government here, with all the power in the dominion-


John Ritchie MacNicol: And the big stick.


John Horne Blackmore: -just can't pay. Well, that is one of the most foolish attitudes which can be taken, and one of the most impotent! I believe the day will come when the minister himself will laugh at the stand he is taking to-night.
May I just propound a simple question for the members of the committee to contemplate? Even if the provinces came to Ottawa and abjectly accepted every single proposal the dominion government offers, would the dominion then be able to offer old age pensioners in Canada 860 a month?- I think the minister would say, "No; we cannot do that."
Well, would they be able to offer that $60 a month at the age of fifty-five? I presume the minister would again say no. Or would they be able to give the blind anything like the pension they ought to have? Again the answer would be a pathetic no. Is that not enough to show that the whole method of approach of the dominion government is wrong? It is wrong because obviously the amount we can give to our elderly citizens depends on the goods we can produce, not the taxes we can collect, and in 1945 we were producing ten billion dollars' worth of goods. If we undertook to distribute that amount of goods so that the people could use them, $50 a month to people of sixty-five years of age would be no more than small change. Let us contemplate that seriously and then set about some modern way of learning how to distribute those goods. We must do it.
I want to lay down three or four points for the minister to consider, if the committee will bear with me.
The minister must not give up his old age pension proposals, nor must he give up his proposals in connection with pensions to the blind, simply because the provinces saw fit not to cooperate in the gigantic scheme of centralization of power which the dominion contemplated and endeavoured to bring into existence at the various conferences with the provinces.


Thomas Reid: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question?


John Horne Blackmore: Certainly; any question at all.


Thomas Reid: I am wondering how he arrives at the age of fifty-five. Why not fifty?


John Horne Blackmore: I will answer the hon. gentleman's question. Ultimately the age at which the old age pension must be paid is going to depend on the age at which industry is going to have no use any longer for the individual; in other words, the age at which he is going to be put out of his job.


Thomas Reid: Why not fifty?


John Horne Blackmore: The age will probably have to be fifty. If I were to say fifty now, however, I have no doubt that 50 per cent of the Liberals would go on a campaign and get up on platforms throughout the country in an endeavour to make my remarks look ridiculous. Therefore, until the Liberals become a little more advanced in their ideas, I have to be somewhat reserved in what I say. Obviously the day will come when a man who has reached the age of fifty-that day has already come for the woman who has reached the age of fifty-will not be in any pre-
Supply-Health and Welfare

ferred position when it comes to obtaining employment in any concern in the country. Obviously, therefore, if we are to deal with the old age situation, we must be prepared to give the individual enough to enable him to live a life of dignity just as soon as the society in which he lives has no longer any need for his services. That, I think, is selfevident.
With that as the fundamental principle on which to work, let us go forward realistically, facing the facts. I maintain that the scheme which the dominion offered the provinces simply would not cope with the situation at all. They seek to bind the provinces hopelessly to a system of centralization and regimentation; and, notwithstanding that, they would not be able to deal at all effectively with the problems confronting the country. That being so, let us see if we cannot find another approach that will at least give some prospect of holding possibilities. The minister, I repeat, must not abandon his ideas with regard to old age pensions and pensions for the blind. He knows the kind of thing he would like to do. He is as forward-looking a man as there is in this house and just as desirous of seeing that things are done well in this country, and just as sympathetic and tenderhearted, just as considerate of humanitarian ideas as anyone else. Surely, then, he can go forward with his ideals, the ideals which his heart dictates, and see whether he can attain them without the kind of measures he has been thus far contemplating.
First of all, I would suggest, the contributory system for old age pensions is false. It is unsound. Just as soon as the productive agencies within the country catch up, there will be a surplus of every kind of goods and services. That is number one. The thing which we shall need in this country above all others will be purchasing power among the people, and how can you distribute purchasing power among the people if you take some away from every cheque they get in order to build up a fund with which to pay old age pensions? As soon as any Progressive Conservative or any other progressive in the house gets the answer to that question I invite him to call me up and tell me.
I say, therefore, that the contributory system is out in any genuinely progressive, streamlined, modern system of dealing with our situation.
What must we say next? The taxing system will be out. When we tax people in the way we tax them now we take from them the very purchasing power which they need in order to live, and which the producers of goods need

to have the people receive if they, the producers, are to sell their goods to the recipients of purchasing power. In other words, by our taxing system we are destroying the home market and destroying the distribution system. Clearly, then that method of approach is unsound, and that is the next fundamental principle to lay down.
May I say to the minister and to the members of this committee that there is no need of any change in the constitution of Canada. All these ideals we entertain with respect to old age pensions and pensions for the blind as well as other social services can be attained without in any respect destroying the constitution of the country.
May I say, in addition to that, that there is no need for centralization. Already several progressive ministers have begun to see that centralization is unsound. The Minister of Labour, on several occasions in the house this session, has pointed out that fact. Then why consider any scheme of centralization such as the dominion proposed at the conferences? Centralization is simply out. It must not be contemplated. I honour the provinces that have insisted that it shall not be brought about. If Premier Drew had done less than he did he would have betrayed his trust in these times. There may be ulterior motives in Premier Drew


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Horne Blackmore: I am trying to be fair; I am not saying that there are; nor am I saying that there are any ulterior motives so far as Premier Duplessis is concerned. I take the conduct of these two gentlemen at its face value and I say that they have merited the honour of this dominion for the stand they took against centralization. It is a good thing that they did take that stand, because they are the premiers of two provinces which are so big that they cannot be taken into the woodshed and spanked. It is their responsibility to stand up and look after their weaker fellow provinces.


An hon. MEMBER:: What item is this?


John Horne Blackmore: The item under which the minister was discussing the dominion-provincial conference. I, too, am discussing the dominion-provincial conference. Surely the hon. member for Saskatoon city is keen enough to see that; I do not need to give him a talking to. We listened for fifteen minutes to a talk clearly intended to indoctrinate into the members of the house and into the people of the country the idea of centralization. I am answering that argument. As I said a few moments ago, there will soon be a surplus of

Supply-Health and Welfare
goods and services in this country, a surplus with which we shall not know what to do. Already we are contemplating going out and seizing markets in South America and in other places.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding) :: Order. We are discussing old age pensions and pensions for the blind.


John Horne Blackmore: That is exactly what I am discussing, Mr. Chairman. Just as soon as there is a surplus of goods and services in this country-[DOT]


William Henry Golding: Order. The question of marketing goods and all that sort of thing has nothing to do with this item.


John Horne Blackmore: I have left that
matter, Mr. Chairman. May I suggest that while we were discussing old age pensions it was not in order to spend a lot of time on the dominion-provincial conference any more than it is out of order for me to talk about what I am talking about. What I am talking about has a definite bearing on old age pensions. I was going to say that as soon as a surplus arrives there will be a tendency for wages to fall and for the price of goods to fall; there will be a tendency to go into a depression, and just as soon as that time comes, then will come the time for the creation of debt-free money in this country to represent that surplus of goods and services.
I warn the members of the committee that if they do not come to realize the soundness of what I am saying they are going to head this country straight into disaster. If the minister and his colleagues do not base their policies on the fundamental principle of debt-free money they will be responsible for leading this country into disaster, and we shall not have to wait many years to see the fruits of their good labours in that regard. That is important to bear in mind. Normally the production of the state, even before the war, increased year by year three, four and five per cent. When production increases in the state the amount of money in the state has to increase. Who is to supply that increase of money? I maintain that money must be supplied by the state with debt-free money and not by banks which lend money. Just as soon as the state begins to create debt-free money as tickets to represent the surplus goods and services which are in the country, that state will have found a new source of income, a new source of revenue with which can be paid the old age pensions and the pensions for the blind without additional taxation, without centralizing power, without modifying the British North America Act, for this Ottawa
government has control over the banking and financial system of this country, and it has the power to create an issue of debt-free money just exactly as the treasury board did create twenty-six millions of debt-free money during world war I, and use it. This can be done.
The	ACTING	CHAIRMAN	(Mr.	Golding) : Order.


John Horne Blackmore: And it is the solution of the problem.
The	ACTING	CHAIRMAN	(Mr.	Golding) : Order. I would ask the hon. member to try to keep to the item.


John Horne Blackmore: I am sorry; I could not hear what you said.
The	ACTING	CHAIRMAN	(Mr.	Golding) : I would remind hon. members that this is not a joking matter. We are trying to deal with this item in an orderly way. I would	suggest to hon. members that they
support the Chair and endeavour to stick to the rules.


John Horne Blackmore: Where the difficulty lies is, as you, sir, must see, that the members of the committee have talked themselves into a state of impotency, of absolute ineptness. Until I started to speak there was not a suggestion as to what could be done from either the C.C.F., the Liberals or the Conservatives. Certainly the time had come for something progressive to be enunciated before them, and that is all I am doing. I am talking about how old age pensions can be paid without all the ruinous proposals which the minister has been contemplating all during the time that he has been defending himself before this committee.
I emphasize that point. When that is done we shall be going into a new order of debt-free money created by the state to represent the surplus goods and services which the state is able to produce as a result of the tremendous mechanization and the marvellous knowledge and technological skill which have come into this generation's possession.


Brooke Claxton: The printing press.


John Horne Blackmore: The minister talks about the printing press! Why not? All the money the minister has in his pocket came out of the printing press. There is not a dollar of currency that ever came out of a bank in Canada that did not come out of the printing press. What is the matter with the minister? Why does he make a remark like that? He is moreover, entirely overlooking the fact that at least 97 per cent of the business of this country is done with bank credit. Why does not he recognize the fact-and in fact it is
Supply-Health and Welfare

more than a fact-that bank credit can be used as the new money that is debt-free and interest-free just as well as the printed money?


Mr. ARCHIBALD:: I could get up and make a propaganda speech on all these things and I could make a good job of it too.


Thomas Langton Church: We have been dealing with old age pensions. Before the next item is brought before the committee, I would suggest that the government should lay down a policy of abolishing the means test which is just charity. They should set an example to the provinces by making a larger contribution themselves because they have unlimited sources of finance. The minister is fond of consulting the provinces. We shall soon be in the position where we shall have to consult the provinces to play "the wearin' of the green" on the bagpipes. v


John Horne Blackmore: Were not the provinces originally independent? They were independent when they entered confederation. What is the matter with the hon. member for Broadview?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I was going to ask the minister a simple question, but I think I shall now have to make a speech. I was sorry to hear the fallacious arguments of the hon. member for Mackenzie, who said that because we spent several billion dollars in the war we could now spend several billions more on various schemes of social security, and there should be nothing to it. It reminds me of the story of a man who had SI,800 in the bank and who was suddenly stricken with the terrible disease of cancer. He had an expensive operation which cost him $1,500. When he got out of the hospital he said. "I could afford to spend $1,500 to get rid of that desperate disease which I had and which I did not want, and I certainly ought to be able to afford to buy a new automobile, a new washing machine for my wife, refurnish the house and spend $3,000 or $4,000 more on other things without any trouble at all." I think that is what that argument amounts to.


John Horne Blackmore: Which argument?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I was referring to the hon. member for Mackenzie. So far as the hon. member for Lethbridge is concerned it has always been a marvel to me how he and the members of his party can come out with so many exceptionally sound statements which I can follow and agree with and at the same time advocate policies which in their essentials come down to the point of supporting old age pensions where the baby bonuses stop.


John Horne Blackmore: Tell us how you would do it?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It might be quite possible to do it; but having spent several years of close association with the founder of the Social Credit party in Alberta, and having had many hours of conversation with him while he was directing the group-


William Henry Golding: Order. I ask the hon. member to stay with the item.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am sorry; I was just replying to the question. I am sorry to say that after all that discussion and argument he was pleasant; but I was still absolutely unconvinced of the soundness of his ideas.


John Horne Blackmore: Can you see a solution of the problem? That is what we want.


Douglas Scott Harkness: To come more particularly to the old age pension matter, may I say that during the present session of parliament I have received somewhere in the neighbourhood of twelve to fifteen hundred cards from old people who wish to receive a higher old age pension. These cards are put out by an organization called the social security council of Alberta, which advocates $60 a month as the first principle for men at the age of sixty and for women at the age of fifty-five. The first card that was put out had the amount and urged the member to whom it was sent to carry that policy into effect. Then they put out a new card which threatens the member that if he does not put forth his best efforts, if he does not get this thing into operation, he will be defeated at the next election; they will make sure of that. I object to putting over some particular idea by making use of a cheap card through the mail, particularly when it comes without a stamp on it, and the government gets no revenue from it. I object to being threatened by these people.
But one point I should like to make is this, that so long as the old age pension situation remains in anything like its present state, there will be constant demands to increase the amount of that pension and to lower the age. That will go on and on and on; there will be constant demand and constant pressure.
As a result of having had all these cards, I have given considerable thought to the problem. In my view the only permanent solution is to place old age pensions on a straight insurance basis, and to institute a system of contributory old age pensions to which people will be obliged to contribute. I do not like the minister's idea of having a social service tax for this purpose of old age

Supply-Health and Welfare
pensions, or for this or that other purpose. I think it should be on a straight insurance principle, and on a sound actuarial basis. As soon as a man comes into employment he would start to make payments to the old age pension fund, or the old age pension insurance scheme, whatever you wish to call it. Then, upon reaching the age provided under the scheme-and that could be made anything within reason-he would receive an amount in proportion to what he has paid in. In my opinion that is the only way we can satisfactorily solve the old age pension situation.
Has the government given any thought to setting up an old age pension insurance scheme along these lines?


Brooke Claxton: A great deal of consideration has been given to that and to all other old age pension plans. It will continue to be given. Regarding the plan such as the hon. member has suggested it must be remembered that in a country like Canada about half the population are self-employed. This makes it very difficult to relate a payment directly to the amount to be received. Further, if that is done you still have to provide pensions for those needing them but who have not contributed. So that you have to have a means-test plan supplementing the other. We have reached the conclusion that, having 'regard to the particular situation in Canada, the most effective and the fairest way is the one I have described, and that is, cover part of the cost with a tax, which we thought might amount to three per cent, and which would be paid by everyone able to pay.


Victor Quelch: One of my chief objections against a contributory scheme is that those who need pensions most are, generally speaking. unable to contribute, and therefore not in a position to benefit. I have in mind especially the workers in primary industry.
I recall that before the war we in this group were urging the payment of a pension of $50 a month at the age of sixty, and that in those days we were told time and again that the government could not possibly afford to pay out so much money, and that it had not any money for that purpose. I also recall that within six weeks of the declaration of war the government had the chartered banks create for its use over $200 million. I would remind the Minister of National Health and Welfare that when that $200 million was created for purposes of the war, it was not printing press money. That amount of money was created by the chartered banks, without the printing of a single dollar; it was cheque book money.
Let me again remind the minister that we would never have had the war effort we did
have, had it not been for the fact that four billions of dollars in new money was created- and it was created by the banking business, without printing. It was cheque money.
Mr. Graham Towers warns us that in the very near future we shall be passing into a time where there will be a lack of effective markets. I would suggest that one of the best ways we can create in Canada good markets would be to help the old age pensioners by paying them an adequate amount of money, so that they can buy goods. As the governor of the Bank of Canada has pointed out, one of our great troubles in the future will not be the fact that we cannot produce, but the fact that we have produced goods which we cannot sell.
The minister may suggest that we shall have goods but we shall not have the money. I ask him this question: Did he ever once during the war hear it said that we could not have a battleship, or could not have aircraft, or could not have material for the army because we did not have the money? He knows very well that the only thing that hindered the war effort was the mere matter of production of goods and services. Where those goods and services were available, money was made available to buy them.
What did we fight for? We were told that we were fighting for a new social order. Surely the old age pensioner should have a new social order. If we can create money to win the war to achieve a new social order, then I say that we should be able to create money to enjoy the benefits of that social order after we have won the war. Any government which suggests for one minute that it cannot get money for that purpose is fooling the people of the country, and the people will not be fooled. The people are not going to be willing in future to be told that we are going to have to do without things of this kind because the government is still hanging on to some old-fashioned money system which has no relationship whatsoever to the productive capacity of the country.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Will the Minister of National Health and Welfare say whether, if all the provinces had agreed to the proposals submitted by the federal government at the dominion-provincial conference, he could have carried out his complete national scheme for old age pensions without further taxation of the Canadian people?


Brooke Claxton: No. Pensions have to be paid for by people.

Supply-Health and Welfare


Lawrence Wilton Skey: In other words, the minister would have had to impose a further tax on the people of Canada.


Brooke Claxton: The cost of carrying out the scheme would have had to be borne by the Canadian people and by Canadian production in one way or another. It would be for the Minister of Finance to say whether or not an adidtional tax or a smaller reduction in taxes would be necessary.


John Bracken: We are discussing an item of $9,274,050 for old age pensions and pensions for the blind. The statutory appropriation as it, appears at page 28 of the estimates is about $35 million. I understand that the former item is one provided by order in council during the war to increase the amount paid to old age pensioners because of the higher costs of living. I came in to-night after this discussion had started and the minister was explaining why he could not provide a better old age pension service. He went on to say that this was because of the failure of the provinces to agree to the major proposals advanced by the government. The minister gave some estimates of the cost of the government's proposals. As I remember, he suggested a figure of $200,000,000 for old age pensions, $150,000,000 for health insurance and something extra for unemployment insurance. Can the minister say now what additional amount over the present estimates these various schemes of social security, as covered by the dominion government's proposals to the provinces at the dominion-provincial conference, would cost?


Brooke Claxton: The dominion's share
of old age pensions and pensions for the blind, both under the statutes and under the order in council, amounts to approximately $43,000,000. The proposal at the conference by the dominion for old age pensions to everyone at the age of seventy of $30 a month would cost $200,000,000, and the dominion's share of 50 per cent of pensions up to $30 a month for those between the ages of sixty-five and sixty-nine who were in need would be at least $17,000,000, or a total of $217,000,000.


John Bracken: That would be $174,000,000 more than at present.


Brooke Claxton: Yes. That is a minimum difference because it was recognized that the $17,000,000 was a minimum estimate. It was thought that it would more likely be $20,000,000, or even more.


John Bracken: What would be the
additional amount required for health insurance ?


Brooke Claxton: The dominion's share
of health insurance, when fully introduced, was estimated to be $150,000,000.


John Bracken: That would be a new
item altogether.


Brooke Claxton: Yes, additional to any
they now paid. Then otherwise the health grants would vary depending upon what a province spent. To a considerable degree they would be matching grants, and their total would have been under $19,000,000. That was the maximum which would be reached only after a number of years. I would point out that the health insurance proposals could be arrived at and fully worked out and implemented throughout the whole dominion only after a considerable period of time. We offered assistance to the provinces in connection with the introduction of health services which they might introduce by stages or within certain areas. It was a very flexible plan and, while the dominion would be contributing something from the first year in which the plan came into effect, it would not be called upon to pay the full amount estimated until all the provinces had fully implemented the health insurance proposals.


John Bracken: The ultimate cost would be about what?


Brooke Claxton: It was estimated at



S150,000,000.

John Bracken: In a Canadian publication recently it was estimated by one whom we would regard as a reliable authority that the expenditures arising from the dominion government's new proposals would be in the vicinity of $600,000,000 per annum, whereas at the present time under the war-time tax agreements the payments to the provinces are about $124,000,000. Is that statement substantially correct?


Brooke Claxton: I think the leader of
the opposition should properly put that question to the Minister of Finance, but my impression is that that estimate of the cost to the dominion of its proposals is substantially as I have stated it. The benefit to the Canadian people would be equally great.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and Reconversion - National Health and Welfare
[Stage Direction]
57S.	Treatment of Canadian fishermen and seamen, $15,000'.
Harry Grenfell Archibald: In connection with this item, I should like to refer to part V, sections 304 to 308 inclusive of the Canada Shipping Act, with particular reference to section 305.

Supply-Health and Welfare
This section discriminates against the treatment of certain seamen engaged in coastal traffic, especially those sailing along the coast of British Columbia and between ports in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. Section 305 reads:
(1) There shall be levied and collected on every ship arriving in any port in the provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island. British Columbia or in any port on Hudson bay or James bay in the provinces of Manitoba or Ontario, hereinafter called ''the provinces," a duty of two cents for every ton which such ship measures, register tonnage, unless
(a)	the ship is engaged in the coasting trade of Canada and arrives at any port in any of the said provinces from any other port in the same province, or arrives at any port in the province of Quebec from any port m the province of Ontario, and has not during the calendar year made a payment on account of such duty; or unless
(b)	the ship is a ship which came from a place out of Canada and has paid duty on the same voyage in a previous port of call in' Canada.
Under that section seamen engaged along the coast of British Columbia or in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec do not have the benefit of hospital treatment which is provided for seamen on ships plying between different provinces. In British Columbia we would like to see the act extended so that seamen engaged in the coastal trade in that province could receive treatment. These exceptions should be done away with. During the war, part V of the act, principally section 308, was amended by order in council P.C. 164/6991, but this amendment has since been rescinded on the pretence that it was just a war measure. That order reads:
Tree medical treatment and care may be provided by the Department of Pensions .and National Health for any sick or disabled seaman not entitled thereto under the provisions of part V of the Canada Shipping Act, 1934, if such seaman is suffering from sickness or disability with respect to which entitlement to a pension has not been conceded under any existing law, where such sickness arose or disability was incurred on a ship of Canadian registry, or is a seaman of Canadian nationality serving on a ship of other than Canadian registry, while the ship was operating in such waters as may be determined by the Minister of Pensions and National Health, on the advice of the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services, to be particularly liable to enemy attack.
Surely these social services should have been maintained on the books in peace time. If they were desirable in time of war, surely they should be maintained in time of peace. Under the Canada Shipping Act, if a man is taken seriously ill or meets with an accident on a vessel and is hospitalized at the first port of call and should later be released as fit to be returned home, he is then thrown on the mercy of his Britannic Majesty's consul,
who sees that he is returned to his home port. He may even travel home in the company of some cattle that are being shipped in the same direction. If, on arrival at his home port, the man should still require medical attention he is denied such attention under the terms of the act for the reason that he did not return on the same vessel. In other words, a man must avoid treatment in a foreign port, even if he is dying, to assure himself of medical attention when and if he is lucky enough to survive and reach his home port on his own vessel. By the same token, if a man were injured or suffered illness through shipwreck he would have to refuse being rescued and endeavour to salvage his vessel and bring it back with him in order to receive the medical attention he would require. This is covered in part V, section 308, and, to say the least, is nonsensical.
In this connection, dealing with the health of seamen I should like to deal with section 288. This section allows for treatment of venereal disease in any Canadian port whether a man is ashore or on shipboard, but if a man on a Canadian vessel contracts venereal disease in a port other than a Canadian one he is responsible fo" his own treatment. In this connection, it is to be noted that Canadian vessels are the only vessels in the world to-day where this is still the practice. Even Great Britain changed the clause in the British Shipping Act, and to-day treats venereal disease in the classification of general illness. On November 10, 1943, four members of the crew of the sailing vessel, the City oj Albcrni, contracted venereal disease while their vessel lay in the port of Valparaiso. They were charged with deductions from their wages for medical expenses incurred in treatment of the disease. It was the contention of their union representatives that, in view of the fact that all maritime nations do accept the treatment of venereal disease the same as any other illness, the cost of treatment should not be charged to the men. However, they were charged under the "wilful" clause of the act. The Department of Transport in this case referred the union to the courts. Rather than referring the union to the courts a little action by the government in line with other maritime nations would save a great deal of unnecessary suffering and needless expense to the individuals concerned.
This is a matter of vital concern to the seamen of Canada's merchant marine, and with all the talk we hear from the present government as to their interest in social welfare, why cannot they maintain the order in council which they passed during the war?
Supply-Health and Welfare

It is part and parcel of the general set-up of other maritime nations. It was regarded as very necessary in time of war. Some day we might want these seamen again, and they might not be willing to sail the boats unless conditions are changed. I am interested in this matter because I have worked on coastal boats and am a member of the international seafarers' union. I should like to see these men given the service they deserve.


Brooke Claxton: Similar representations
have been made by other members from time to time, in addition to those made to-night by the hon. member for Skeena. He has said that section 303 of the Canada Shipping Act discriminates against this class of seamen. He also said that other countries had more generous provisions with- regard to these seamen. My information is that no country provides the kind of coverage that he mentions.
The situation, as I understand it, is this. Under section 305 of the Canada Shipping Act, which in one form or another has been in effect for a great number of years, owners of ships engaged in international or interprovincial trade are required to pay a certain fee into the sick mariners' fund. That fee is two cents per ton. Out of the fund the federal government, acting through the Department of National Health and Welfare, provides services to sick mariners. This came up in connection with the vote under item 210, arid at that time I think some figures were put on Hansard. It runs into a very considerable sum of money. In the fiscal year 1944-45 the revenue was $210,452.42 and the expenditure *vas $303,747.58. But, generally speaking, over the years, the expenditure is just about offset by the revenue. This measure is arrived at by international agreement. It provides protection for seamen who are covered by the terms of section 305: that is those who are engaged in international o>r interprovincial trade, not local trade.
The class of seamen whose cause has been so ably argued by the hon. member for Skeena are those who are engaged in trade within a single province. They are not ordinarily covered. It has been the view of the federal government and, I believe, all other governments of this and every country, since long before I had anything to do with this administration, that the responsibility for dealing with seamen in that class was a matter of local jurisdiction, in this case a matter within the jurisdiction of the provinces. Indeed provision for the purpose is, I understand, made in some if not in all of the provinces under the workmen's compensation acts. Further, I am informed that in the

case of some of the vessels in this class there is a requirement by the Department of Transport that they do secure protection under the workmen's compensation act. But that comes under the Department of Transport and I am not familiar with the details. There is no discrimination in any sense. The coasting vessels, which are the vessels which are worked by this class of seamen, do not make any contribution. They do not come within the legislation. It has been the view that if there should be protection for that class of seamen operating within the ordinary limits of a province, it should be provided by the workmen's compensation law of the province. I might point out that, whereas the situation regarding men engaged on deep-sea work is as I have described it, that is, year in and year out the costs are just about met by the revenue. The situation is quite different with regard to the vessels which carry on an interprovincial trade as opposed to an international trade. In 1938, which was a normal peacetime year, coastal vessels covered having a crew membership of 8,652 paid $7,984.98, and treatment was given to the amount of $56,260.16. In 1944, this class of vessel, with a crew membership of 9,547, paid out $9,133.90, while treatment costing $59,742.97 was given.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I should like to say a few words in support of some of the points raised by the bon. member for Skeena. The minister may remember that I discussed this matter with him last year. I first took it up with the Minister of Transport, and had prepared an amendment to the Canada Shipping Act which I thought would meet the situation. The men, and the women too, I imagine, who work on coastal ships in British Columbia feel that they are being discriminated against. The department is not necessarily to blame for this, because it is only administering the sick mariners' fund according to the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act-


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


Angus MacInnis: -which provides that only vessels which ply between international ports or ports between two different provinces pay dues. But here is the sort of situation which arises. A ship crosses from Prince Edward Island to New Brunswick, or from New Brunswick to Prince Edward Island, a distance of nine or ten miles, and because of that, contributions are made to the sick mariners' fund and the crews are looked after in case of illness; or in British Columbia a boat goes from Vancouver to Seattle or from Victoria to Seattle and the crews of those boats are covered by the benefits of the sick mariners' fund. But take a much longer sea

Slipply-Health and Welfare
journey, from Prince Rupert to Vancouver, and ships operated by the same company are not covered. So the employees of these ships feel that they are being discriminated against. The minister mentioned that they are covered by workmen's compensation. That is quite true, but the workmen's compensation fund covers them only in case of accident, not in case of illness.
Let me take two cases. An employee on a Canadian Pacific boat plying between Vancouver and Seattle becomes ill with appendicitis; he is taken to a hospital and his hospital bills are taken care of out of the sick mariners' fund. A person on a sister ship running between Victoria and Vancouver, or between Prince Rupert and Vancouver-much longer distances-takes sick with appendicitis, goes to hospital, and has to pay his own hospital and doctor bills, and if he is unable to pay them while he is in the hospital he comes out with a debt which he must discharge. What is required, I submit, is an amendment to section 305, I think it is, of the Canada Shipping Act, so that this provision will be applicable to ships plying between different ports in the same province as well as to ships plying between ports in different provinces. It seems to me that the remedy is very simple. I do not see that any provincial rights enter into the matter; I do not believe any province would object to such an amendment. I ask the minister again, as I did eight or nine months ago, to take the matter under consideration and see if something cannot be done to obviate this most illogical situation.


George Randolph Pearkes: I was rising to speak on the same subject. I do not profess to have anything like the detailed knowledge which the hon. member for Skeena has.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. It has just occurred to me that the hon. member is going to discuss an amendment of the act. This is hardly the time to discuss it. I do not know whether the act comes within the purview of the Department of National Health and Welfare, but, if not, it would not be pertinent to the vote under consideration. The committee is considering item 573, treatment of Canadian fishermen and seamen, $15,000, and the discussion should be confined to the purpose for which that money is used.


Angus MacInnis: I wonder if, before the hon. member for Nanaimo resumes his remarks, I might speak to that point of order. Ip a certain sense, I believe, Mr. Chairman, your point of order is well taken, because we have passed the item dealing with the sick mariners' fund. But the sick mariners' fund is under a section of the Canada Shipping Act which comes
under the administration of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I thought at one time that it was under the administration of the Minister of Transport, but that particular section, 305, of the Canada Shipping Act is under the administration of this department, and it can be discussed. There has been some discussion on it, and I do not want to speak to it further, but I suggest that the hon. member for Nanaimo be permitted to make his particular point, because the matter is one of importance.


William Ross Macdonald: The discussion has gone on at some considerable length. I was under the impression that the administration of the act came under a different department.


Angus MacInnis: No; it comes under the Department of National Health and Welfare.


William Ross Macdonald: I think we should allow the hon. member for Nanaimo to make his remarks, and then we might coniine the discussion to the vote under consideration.


George Randolph Pearkes: I just want to add my support to what the hon. member for Skeena said, because the same problem has been brought up by the fishermen and the seamen in my own constituency. We have those boats which have been referred to as going from Vancouver to Victoria, in which perhaps a seaman who is taken ill cannot receive treatment on that tour. If, however, he goes on from Victoria to Seattle, on the same boat,, on the same trip, I believe, although I am not positive, that he can receive the treatment. But there are a number of fishermen operating out from Nanaimo and other ports in my constituency who go out into the deep seas, who continue fishing for a long time and then return to these ports in British Columbia and there is a feeling amongst them that there is some discrimination and that it is not possible for them to receive some of the benefits which they believe the fishermen on the maritime seaboard receive if they go out from one of the ports of New Brunswick and happen to put back into a port in Nova Scotia.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and Reconversion - National Health and Welfare-
575. Health unit. Prince Rupert, B.C., $4,080.
Harry Grenfell Archibald: Is this health unit in Prince Rupert for the treatment of seamen, as far as medical health treatment and so on are concerned?


Brooke Claxton: No; it is the general health situation brought on by the quite considerable concentration of troops in Prince Rupert and its area during the war.
Supply-Health and Welfare


Harry Grenfell Archibald: If that were taken away, would seamen be able to get treatment through other sources? I imagine they would get treatment through this.


Brooke Claxton: This vote does not assist seamen in any way.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and Reconversion - National Health and Welfare-
576.	Health services, Halifax, N.S. Chlora-mination of water, $30,000.
Mr. KNIGHT:: I am interested in this word "ehloramination." What is the definition of it? I presume it is English.


Brooke Claxton: It is virtually the same as chlorination and is a process whereby a small quantity of chlorine, and sometimes other chemicals, are added to the water to purify it.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Is it synonymous with
chlorination?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and Reconversion - National Health and Welfare-*
577.	Nanaimo, Victoria and Prince Rupert,
.$11,000.
George Randolph Pearkes: When will the plant at Nfanaimo be handed over to the city of Nanaimo? I understood the minister to say that arrangements had been made for its disposal.


Brooke Claxton: Actually the plant is
situated where it has always been and is operated by the civic employees of Nanaimo. All that remains is for a formal agreement to be entered into between the crown and the city. I understand that is already agreed to and nothing remains but to sign the agreement.


George Randolph Pearkes: Does the same apply to Victoria?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


George Randolph Pearkes: Why is the money needed?


Brooke Claxton: Under the agreement we are continuing to pay the cost of operating the chlorination plants until December 31,1946.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and Reconversion - National Health and Welfare-
578.	Greater Vancouver, North Vancouver city and district, $35,000.
Angus MacInnis: Knowing now that chlor-amination and chlorination mean the same thing -


Brooke Claxton: Perhaps I should explain that. The additional syllable is introduced to indicate the addition of a very small portion of ammonia. It is only an infinitesimal part.


Angus MacInnis: I imagine the amount of ammonia that is added does not affect the matter to such an extent that I may not raise the point which I am about to discuss. Perhaps there was a professor mixed up in these estimates. My understanding is that the chlorination of the water supply of Vancouver has been discontinued. As a matter of fact, and as a matter of history, the chlorination of the water supply of Vancouver was imposed upon the residents and the municipal authorities of that city after a strenuous fight. I do not know whether the members of this committee know it, but the water supply of Vancouver is so pure that when you chlorinate it you really contaminate it. That indeed was proven by this fact that there was a fish hatchery that was supplied by water from our water supply, and after the dominion authorities, acting in their wisdom, purified our water by chlorinating it, it killed all the fish in the hatchery'. So we had the peculiar situation that the water was not pure unless it killed fish. The war being over, however, I understand that the municipal fathers in Vancouver have had the chlorination stopped. I do not see, therefore, what this vote is for. They have stopped the chlorination of the water, and I understand they are pasteurizing the milk instead. That is actually the situation, and I see no reason in the world why there should be $35,000 in the estimates to contaminate the water supply of the city of Vancouver.


Brooke Claxton: I do not think the hon. gentleman expects me to enter into a discussion of the fundamental situation in connection with the water supply in Vancouver. That can be done by other people and the two sides of the question have been vociferously put forward by people on the spot. With regard to the question the hon. member asks, the situation is that the votes for these three chlorination plants are lumped together, and until an agreement is reached with each of the three municipalities we might be liable, under the agreement we entered into to chlorinate the water for them, to pay any expenses up to the end of the war. But if the agreements are signed, as we expect they will be, then the obligation with regard to Vancouver will terminate from March 31, 1946, and the amount provided in the vote in connection with Vancouver will not be needed. But we should have the item there,

Private Bills
because there is the possibility of the obligation running until the formal termination of hostilities.


Angus MacInnis: One other question. I understand that the chlorinating machinery- I presume that is the right term-has been turned over to War Assets Corporation and that it is no longer there. If the machinery for the chlorinating is not there, then certainly the agreement has definitely come to an end as far as Vancouver is concerned and there is no need for this item.


Brooke Claxton: The machinery is still there.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Brooke Claxton: We have made very good progress and concluded all the items of this department except those that come under a separate branch for the film board, and since it is ten minutes to eleven o'clock and a very hot night I wonder if it might not meet the views of the committee to rise now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not like to resist the suggestion that the committee should rise after a hard day's work, but there is a question relating to the estimates which I asked the minister on a previous occasion and which has not yet been answered. It will be found at page 2584 of Hansard of June 17. I said then:
Would the minister give figures indicating the incidence of venereal disease within, say, the last two years, to establish trends, including both the civilian population and the armed services?
The minister in reply, after making an explanatory statement, said he had figures for 1943-44 but could not lay his hands on them at the time. Will he kindly put those figures on Hansard, as well as the figures for 1945 if he has them?


Brooke Claxton: In doing that, I think I should recall to members of the committee the warning I gave about the use of figures with regard to venereal disease. The greater degree of cooperation you get, the greater the amount of reporting of the figures by the provincial and municipal authorities and by doctors, the higher the apparent rate of venereal disease. The figures, therefore, must be read cautiously and by those who are familiar with them in order to derive their true meaning. The total venereal disease in 1944 as reported by provincial health departments to the dominion bureau of statistics was 38,772 cases; in 1945, 40,527 cases. The total syphilis for 1944, was 16,475 cases; in 1945, 15,278 cases.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is a reduction?


Brooke Claxton: Yes. In 1944, the number of cases of gonorrhoea was 22,282; in 1945, 25,237. In 1944, other venereal diseases amounted to fifteen cases; in 1945, twelve cases.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Has the minister the figures for 1943 as well?


Brooke Claxton: No. The reporting began only in 1943, in accordance with arrangements worked out in 1943, and I have not the figures. I do not think there are figures. If there are I shall make sure that the hon. member gets them.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. St. Laurent the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m., until Tuesday July 2.
Tuesday, July 2, 1946