1946-08-15

INDIAN AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
Third report of special joint committee of Senate and House of Commons appointed to examine and consider the Indian Act.-Mr. Brown.


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to table a copy of order in council P.C. 3456, passed on the 14th day of August, rescinding the regulations respecting the distribution of motor vehicles.
As the house will recall, during the period from May 7 to June 30 applications for priority certificates were accepted and processed but, due to the number of certificates outstanding and not honoured, the issue of the certificates was suspended until July 1, when all which had been approved during this period were issued. After the 1st July no applications were accepted, except in very special circumstances. On August 1 the controller's orders were amended to prohibit the sale or delivery by a dealer of a new passenger car or truck to anyone who was not the holder of a priority certificate. Since then new passenger cars and trucks have been delivered only to holders of a priority certificate. It is now felt that the distribution of motor vehicles can best be handled by normal trade channels, and the regulations have accordingly been rescinded.
I should remind the house that price ceilings on motor vehicles are fixed by the wartime prices and trade board, and that the rescinding of these regulations does not remove or affect the price ceilings on motor vehicles.



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of National Defence):: I desire to announce that a new method has been adopted of dealing

Armed Forces-Absentees
with absentees and deserters from the armed
forces. The new method will apply to all service personnel who went absent on or before 1st January, 1946, and who had not been apprehended or had not surrendered themselves before 15th August, 1946. It will not apply to those who deserted or went absent while serving overseas. The order in council authorizing the new method, provides that such persons shall be deemed never to have served in the armed forces of Canada and consequently shall not be entitled to any of the rights, privileges or benefits normally accorded to members of the armed forces.
The new method to be now adopted was approved by the Prime Minister prior to his departure for the Paris peace conference. The order in council authorizing the new method of dealing with absentees and deserters was passed yesterday and the effective date fixed as to-day, August 15.
At the present time there are approximately 14,000 army absentees and deserters still unapprehended of whom approximately 8,200 are N.R.M.A. personnel and 5,800 general service personnel; 155 in the navy and 140 in the R.C.A.F. During the war, and from the end of the war up to the present time, active efforts were made by the services to apprehend absentees and deserters. When apprehended or after surrendering they were tried by service authorities. A period of detention normally followed. This has required the maintenance at a substantial cost of special service establishments such as provost corps, staffs at headquarters and depots, and military detention barracks, to apprehend, discipline and retain in custody the absentees and deserters. Further expenditures are incurred upon the issuance of rations and quarters, medical and dental treatment, clothing and equipment, as well as dependents' allowance for the dependents of those in detention.
When such absentees and deserters have served their sentences they are discharged from the armed forces and at that time they normally receive a clothing allowance of $100, plus other rehabilitation benefits, including in many cases a war service gratuity and rehabilitation grant based on the period of satisfactory service but not including the time spent while absent without leave or in detention. In addition there are other benefits of real value for which they may be eligible, including disability pensions, assistance under the Veterans' Land Act and the like. Such personnel are entitled to dental treatment at the time of discharge as well as free medical treatment for the first year after discharge. This new method will have, therefore, the result of
imposing a penalty by the removal of benefits to which such personnel would otherwise be entitled and, at the same time, effecting substantial economies in both manpower and financial outlay.
Numerous requests and representations
have been made from time to time during the past year for a general amnesty as was granted on December 20, 1919 after the last war. The method which has been adopted imposes an automatic penalty which deprives absentees and deserters of the benefits which they might otherwise derive as members or former members of the armed forces.
The method which I have outlined applies only to those absent before January 1, 1946 and is not intended to include the casual shortterm absentee who continues as a normal problem of the three services. While length of absence is not an infallible guide as to the intention not to return to service, it is a general indication that the absentee does not voluntarily intend to return. It was thought that all absentees who merited any real consideration have had more than a fair opportunity for the past several months to come forward voluntarily.
Absentees and deserters who had been apprehended or who surrendered themselves prior to 15th August 1946 and who are at present serving sentences will have, subject to the usual provisions, the compensating advantages and benefits which I have mentioned. Under existing regulations all sentences of absentees and deserters at present in detention are reviewed regularly and remissions granted where desirable. This policy will continue with more frequent reviews being made.
Absentees and deserters who under the new procedure are, deemed never to have served will, of course, not receive any form of discharge certificate from the Canadian services.
I wish to table copy of order in council P.C. 3264 to which I have referred.


Mr. PEARKES:: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence arising out of the statement he made? Is the board of review to which he referred the board which was set up under Mr. Justice Keiller Mackay to examine all court martial cases, or is it a board made up of regular officers? Also, is the board under Mr. Justice Keiller Mackay still operating?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I did not refer to any board of review. The board under Mr. Justice Keiller Mackay is not operating. I referred to the review which is made periodically, as my hon. friend knows, by the district officers com-
National Registration

manding or by the general officers commanding all commands, and which no doubt my hon. friend made when he was occupying that position.


Mr. McMASTER:: I should like to ask
the Minister of National Defence if there is any authority except that which would be given by the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act to make the order that was made this morning?


Douglas Charles Abbott: To answer that would
require a legal opinion which I do not think I can give offhand. I was advised by the Department of Justice that the order in council was within the power of the governor in council.



NATIONAL REGISTRATION


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have to inform the house that under order in council P.C. 3449 of August 14, 1946, national registration has been discontinued as from to-day August 15. It is provided by the same order in council that further prosecutions shall not be entered against anyone accused of an infraction under the national registration regulations, 1940, nor shall pending cases be proceeded with.
I should like to briefly review the salient features of the registration when now announcing its termination.
At a time when France had fallen and Great Britain was already being subjected to the most violent action the enemy could put against her, when indeed the shadow of actual invasion over this country appeared to offer some grim prospect of reality, it was agreed that existing data on Canada's human resources was inadequate for total war purposes.
Within two months of the collapse of France all plans had been laid for the national registration of civilian residents of Canada over sixteen years of age, and registration was made during August, 1940.
With the assistance of an army of volunteer registrars, forms were completed by 7,862,920 persons, of whom, 3,979.680 were males and 3,883,240 females.
Made under the National Resources Mobilization Act, the registration was taken for, and kept up to date by the Department of National War Services, until March, 1942, when it was transferred to the Department of Labour to assist toward wartime control of manpower.

Since 1940 keeping the fundamental data of the registration up to date has involved a total of about eight million changes, including new addresses, marriages, deaths, corrections, new registrations, and so forth-about the same number as there were persons registered originally.
The data yielded by the registration was used for a variety of purposes, but chiefly for the following:-
(a)	The military call-up for the army.
(b)	Procurement of skilled workers for essential industries.
(c)	Indexing of technical personnel.
(d)	Listing of doctors and nurses.
(e)	Identification of individuals for a variety of purposes.
(f)	Listing of certain foreign nationals of allied nations, available for military service under those countries.
I should like to express my sincere appreciation to the staff engaged on the registration while in the Department of Labour, and to the postmasters across the country who acted as agents, and without whose assistance the keeping up to date of the registration would have been extremely difficult.
The same order in council, P.C. 3449, revokes the national selective service mobilization regulations, 1944, as from August 15. Earlier this year the thirteen mobilization boards had been dissolved, and the thirteen registrars' offices across Canada had been closed out. The order in council provides that further action will not be instituted in the courts against any offenders under the mobilization regulations, nor will court proceedings now pending be proceeded with.
At this point I should like to explain that the action taken now follows after veiy strenuous efforts to locate all men of military call-up age who could not be found again after first registering. In addition to using the services of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and other police forces throughout Canada and checking through government contacts with the population, we have used several established tracing agencies for some years. The various methods used did, of course, succeed in locating many outstanding delinquents, but it is our opinion that the 1,563 who failed to respond to our orders, and who have not yet been traced, could hardly be located, even through further efforts.
The total of men not yet located has been reduced to 6,553-this out of a grand total of 1,859,811 men dealt with under mobilization regulations. But this number of 6,553 contains mostly men who have left the country, or who apparently are dead, or who registered more

Questions
than once under assumed names, or are in other unusual categories. The possible delinquents are represented by the figure of 1,563, to which I have referred already. Thus, at most, men not yet located, and thought to be delinquent under the regulations, represent only one-twelfth of one per cent of the grand total, 1,859,811.
Figures on the military call-up were frequently given to the house in the past, so at this time I think that in addition to the figures I have, mentioned already, it is only necessary to mention that somewhat more than 800,000 of the men dealt with under mobilization regulations are recorded as in the armed services at one time or another.
Originally, of course, the military call-up came under the Department of National War Services, but its administration had been transferred to the Department of Labour at December 1, 1942.
To the members of the judiciary and the other gentlemen who served on the mobilization boards, I wish to express my sincere appreciation once again. Their responsibilities were grave, and their duties were onerous. They had to decide between important wartime industries and the urgent need of men for the armed services. I suggest that without exception they discharged their duties in a conscientious and fair manner, and that they deserve our gratitude. Also the registrars and their staffs deserve credit for the manner in which they carried through their responsibilities.
I am happy that we have reached the day when we are able to dispense finally with these registration and mobilization regulations, and I am sure that the hon. member.? will agree with that sentiment. These measures were vitally necessary for war purposes. They helped Canada over many of our manpower difficulties, but they represented one of the features of wartime administration which a democratic public tolerate and even expect, but which the same public very properly feel is not in accord with the peacetime machinery necessary in the government of a free people.
I now lay on the table a copy of order in council P.C. 3449 of August 14, 1946, as referred to.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: With reference to order in council P.C. 695 of 21.iii.31, as amended by P.C. 805 of 23.iv.37, P.C. 5024 of 30.vi.44 and P.C. 2071 of 28.V.46-
1.	What sum of money is considered to fulfil the condition "sufficient means" mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 2 of said P.C. 695?
2.	What position of affairs is considered to fulfil the condition "in the position to secure and care for" mentioned in paragraphs 3 and 3a of said P.C. 695, and who is the judge in such cases?
3.	What sum of money is considered to fulfil the condition "sufficient means to farm in Canada" mentioned in paragraph 4 of P.C. 695?
4.	What position or sum of money is considered to meet the condition "in a position to receive, marry and care for" mentioned in paragraph 5 of P.C. 695?


Mr. GLEN:: 1.	As the minimum requirementa must necessarily vary with the conditions of settlement in each case, there is no specific sum of money called for. The immigrant must satisfy the immigration inspector-in-charge that he is in a position to maintain himself until employment is secured.
2.	An investigation is conducted by an immigration officer to establish that the applicant for admission to Canada of a dependent or other relative described in the regulations is in a position to receive, house and support his dependent, or in the case of an admissible relative house and maintain such relative until the latter becomes established. The decision is made by the district superintendent of immigration on the facts determined at the investigation.
3.	No specific sum of money is called for by the regulations. The amount will necessarily vaiy in accordance with the type of farming, class of farm required, district to which the immigrant is proceeding, and similar matters.
4.	See answer to No. 2 above.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. DIEFENBAHER:: 1.	What work consisting of preliminary plans, survey parties and actual operations, has been done since January 1, 1946, in connection with (a) the projected diversion of part of the waters of the South Saskatchewan river at or near Elbow, Saskatchewan, including the erection of a dam; (b) the providing of a reservoir for waters in the Qu'Appelle valley; (c) the elevation or the raising of the level of Long lake; (d) the conservation and increase of the waters of Watrous lake?
2.	What further work is contemplated on each of the said projects for the remainder of the present year?


Mr. GARDINER:: May I be permitted to give an oral answer to this question and then ask that it stand as an order for return in order that full details may be obtained? The information must be obtained from Regina

Questions as Orders jor Returns
and it will take some little time to get it. We may not get it before the end of the session, although I hope that will be possible.
The first question asks what work consisting of preliminary plans, survey parties and actual operations, has been done since January 1, 1946, in connection with (a) the projected diversion of part of the waters of the South Saskatchewan river at or near Elbow, Saskatchewan, including the erection of a dam? While I was in Regina a week or so ago I made inquiries and I found that the work that has been done so far this year consists merely of engineering work for the purpose of trying to locate a site at which a dam can be properly built. The difficulty is to find a foundation upon which to rest the dam, and up to that time a suitable site had not been found.
The next section of the question deals with the providing of a reservoir for waters in the Qu'Appelle valley. I think it will be known to the hon. member that there are several different reservoirs there in the form of dams at the end of lakes which either dry up or go down partly during the dry seasons in order to store some water. I do not know that any additions have been made in 1946 down to the present, although the detailed statement will show whether that is true or not. W e are locating dam sites along the north and south side of the Qu'Appelle for the purpose of storing water in order to let it corner down gradually during the summer rather than to rush away during the spring of the year.
The next part of the question deals with the elevation or the raising of the level of Long lake. I do not think any work was done there in 1946, although considerable work has been done during the last five or six years in an attempt to restore the levels of that lake. The complete restoration would be associated with whatever answer is given to question (a) having to do with the diversion of water down the Qu'Appelle if that is found necessary.
Section (d) deals with the conservation and increase of the waters of Watrous lake. I do not know that anything has been done in that regard in 1946, but detailed information will be provided. If this question is allowed to be made an order for return, full information will be given.


GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS-ADVERTISING AND PUBLICITY STAFFS
Mr. FRASER:: 1. What departments of the government, if any, applied to the Civil Service Commission for additional staff to handle advertising and publicity in their respective departments?

2. What are the details of requirements for each department and salaries covering each position advertised by the Civil Service Commission for these departments?


Mr. GLEN:: Return tabled.


USE OF EXHIBITION PROPERTIES FOR WAR PURPOSES -WOODSTOCK AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY
Mr. DANIEL:: 1.	What has been the cost.to the Department of National Defence in policing the grounds of the Woodstock agricultural, society since the close of the driving and maintenance school in March, 1946?
2.	What has been the cost to the government for policing the grounds of the Woodstock agricultural society since taken over from the Department of National Defence by the War Assets Corporation?
3.	What was the estimate of cost made by the Department of National Defence for the restoration of the Woodstock agricultural society's property and buildings?
4.	Was there an estimate made by the Woodstock agricultural society to restore their property for fair purposes and, if so, what amount did they agree to accept in cash?
5.	What annual rental was paid for the following exhibition grounds (a) the buildings and grounds of the Woodstock agricultural society at Woodstock, Ontario; (b) for buildings and exhibition grounds at Woodstock, New Brunswick?
6.	How many exhibition grounds in Canada were leased for defence purposes during the war period?
7.	How many of the exhibition grounds and buildings, so leased, have been returned with settled claims as follows: (a) Payment in cash made by the government without the removal of buildings and other equipment constructed by the government; (b) no cash payment, but buildings and grounds restored, to the satisfaction of the exhibition authorities?
8.	(a) In making settlement for damage or restoration for any exhibition property, has the government removed any buildings or equipment constructed for war purposes; (b) if so, where?



CONTROL AND SUPERVISION-REPORT AS TO PARTICIPATION OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) asked whether the government was in a position to comment on a news dispatch from Tokyo reporting that the supreme commander for the allied powers, General Douglas MacArthur, had suggested that the allied council for Japan be broadened by the informal and1 unofficial addition of seven members, including Canada. According to this press dispatch these seven would represent the countries having membership on the far eastern commission. I said that as far as I knew, Canada had not received

Supply-Trade and Commerce
an invitation to join the allied council but that I would ascertain whether there had been any discussion with other governments about the possible extension of an invitation to Canada to join the council.
I find that we have not been approached by any other government on this matter. Membership on the allied council for Japan is at present confined to United States, British, Soviet and Chinese representatives. Its purpose is to consult with and advise the supreme commander for the allied powers concerning enforcing the surrender terms for Japan.
The Canadian government is, of course, represented on the far eastern commission which has its seat in Washington and is charged with the responsibility of formulating the policies, principles and standards required to give full effect to thd Japanese instrument of surrender.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. CHESTER S. MoLURE (Queens): I should like to ask a question of the acting Prime Minister. Has the government of Prince Edward Island completed arrangements with the federal government for the tax relief compensation as per provincial conference claims submitted?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Prime Minister):	I shall have to take my
hon. friend's question as a notice, as I had not received any previous notice of it. I shall see on Hansard just what are the exact terms of his question and endeavour to have a proper reply prepared for him.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
375. Wheat and grain division, $28,532.
Mr. BRACKEN:: Mr. Chairman, when the house rose last evening we were discussing the government's -wheat policy for Canada. My remarks this morning will deal with two aspects of that policy, one the United Kingdom wheat agreement, and the other the government's general wheat policy as distinguished from the United Kingdom agreement.
My first point is that the United Kingdom agreement or contract is a complete reversal of traditional Liberal policy, whether you spell that Liberal with a capital "L" or a 63260-304
small "1", whether you use the word in the party political sense or in the wider sense as indicating the type of economy which the word is commonly used to describe. I shall take only a moment to illustrate what I mean by saying that this agreement is a departure from Liberal policy.
In recent years the government has committed itself to certain lines of policy aimed to promote trade and good will. For instance, in August, 1941, it agreed to the Atlantic charter. Clause 4 of that charter expresses the ideal, with due respect to existing obligationsof furthering the enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity.
"On equal terms," it says. In this agreement we have a one-country arrangement which is not available to other countries. So the government's policy is a departure from that statement of policy laid down in the early years of the war.
Later the government approved the Bretton Woods agreement. In that agreement these words appear:
The fund has been projected to facilitate the establishment of a system of international payments that will maintain relative stability in exchange rates and will permit a multilateral trade pattern.
But in the United Kingdom agreement we have a bilateral trade pattern, and not a multilateral trade pattern.
In 1942 this government exchanged notes with the United States government along the same line. I will read just one clause from the exchange of notes of November 30, 1942.
Our two governments are prepared to cooperate in formulating a programme of agreed action, open to participation by all other countries of like mind, directed to the expansion, by appropriate international and domestic measures, of production, employment, and the exchange and consumption of goods, which are the material foundations of the liberty and welfare of all peoples; to the elimination of all forms of discriminatory treatment in international commerce; and to the reduction of tariffs and other trade barriers.
So the government of Canada in this United Kingdom agreement has departed not only from its traditional policy but from its agreements as expressed in these serious and well-considered statements of government policy. I need not take the time of the committee to read from more of these documents or from more statements by members of the government themselves. I shall content myself by referring to only one, the statement of the Minister of Finance on November 12 last

Supply-Trade and Commerce

when he was dealing with the question of withdrawing the government's tariff proposals. The government had planned some tariff increases and later decided to withdraw them, and on November 12, 1945, the Minister of Finance made this statement to the house:
The government has repeatedly expressed the view that in the interdependent world of today prosperity is indivisible, and that the prosperity of any nation cannot be long maintained without a restoration and expansion of international commerce.
We welcome every indication of a movement in the direction of reciprocal action to produce trade barriers.
' What I have said, Mr. Chairman, is that the government's wheat policy is a wide departure from those statements of what I believe and most of the Canadian people think were statements of wise policy.
Coming now to the agreement itself I said last night that we regard the agreement as a bad agreement. I shall try to summarize very briefly why we think that.
It is a bad agreement because it proposes to sell 160 million bushels of wheat to Britain at 50 cents a bushel below the world price. It is either a gift or it is an improvident trade arrangement. If it is a gift, let us say so. But if it is supposed to be an insurance against low prices in the future-if because we take less for our wheat to-day than it is worth Britain is expected to pay more for our wheat two years from now than the world price when it may be lower, I say that as an insurance that this will be done, it is valueless.
/ It is a bad bargain also because it will create / friction between Britain and Canada. , If in two or three years from now the world price of wheat is low and Britain does not come through with a higher price to us than the world price then is, we shall feel that she has renewed on this agreement. On the other hand, if two or three yearsfrom now, when the world price of wheat may be low, we press Britain to pay us more than the world price, she will feel that we are unreasonable. So I say that the proposal is altogether likely to create friction between this country and Britain.
The third reason why this is a bad bargain is that it will cause friction with other nations as well. It will invite criticism from the wheat-producing nations, because here we are selling wheat to the greatest wheat importer of the world at 50 cents a bushel below the world price. What are other wheat-producing nations to think of a policy of that kind.
It will also invite friction from the wheat consuming nations. Why? Because we are selling wheat to Britain at SI .55 a bushel when the world price is above 82 a bushel and we

do not offer our wheat to other countries at that low price. We are thus putting ourselves in a very unfavourable position to promote good will with the agricultural producing countries of the world on one hand and with the food-consuming countries on the other. This, Mr. Chairman, is the end of the government's policy of selling cheap wheat to the hungry nations of the world other than Britain, and it will be a handicap to us in trying to build up a market in all these other countries which so interpret this arrangement.
And this contract is a bad bargain because Britain can take this wheat at this low price, manufacture it into flour, and sell that flour at a lower price than flour that has been made by nations which have to pay $2 a bushel for their wheat. It is a bad bargain for this reason also-how Can Canada expect to sell the remainder of her wheat at $2 a bushel, the world price, if Britain is offering wheat, or flour made from wheat, at a price less than that? The tendency will be for that practice to drive down the world price and make difficult if not impossible the receiving by Canada of the present world price. I predict that in two years time, or a little more, this agreement will blow up, when the advantages to Britain are gone and when her own people will be wanting to get food at the world -price, as they have always wanted to, and when the world price will probably be lower than it is now.
Now, with respect to the government's wheat policy generally,-


Mr. TUCKER:: May I ask a question on that? I am curious to know what the leader of the opposition means. Does he mean that the British people will not live up to this agreement?


John Bracken: I did not say that.


Walter Adam Tucker: Well, I wonder just what the hon. member did mean.


Mr. COLDWELL:: He said they would renege.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the only thing it could mean.


John Bracken: Why does the hon. member want to ask that question? I should like to answer him if I can.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am asking for information, because I wondered what the leader of the opposition meant by that.


John Bracken: By what?


Walter Adam Tucker: By the suggestion that the agreement may blow up if the price of wheat

Supply-Trade and Commerce
should go down below the price provided in the agreement; that the British people would want to get wheat at the world price. Does he mean that the British people will not live up to this agreement?


John Bracken: In this agreement does Britain agree to pay us two years from now a higher price than the world price?


Walter Adam Tucker: She agrees to pay-


John Bracken: Does she?


Walter Adam Tucker: I asked the leader of the opposition a question.


John Bracken: You asked me a question: I am Irish; I shall answer yours if you answer mine.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: Then give him a chance to answer.


Walter Adam Tucker: Let me answer the question by saying this


John Bracken: The hon. member wrants to make a speech in the middle of mine.


Walter Adam Tucker: If under the agreement wheat is sold to Britain at below the world price now, Great Britain will take that into consideration in the price she is to pay under the agreement later on-in the last two years of the agreement.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding):: Order. The hon. member should not be interrupted without his consent.


John Bracken: I asked the hon. member if in this agreement Britain undertakes to pay us after two years from now a price higher than the world price.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. If the world price is below $1.25 a bushel.


John Bracken: No "ifs" and "ands".


James Garfield Gardiner: There are no "ifs" about it. Yours is all "ifs".


John Bracken: There is nothing in this agreement which requires Britain to pay more than the world price,-


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, there is.


John Bracken: Unless the world price is less than $1.25.


James Garfield Gardiner: The world price could be less.


John Bracken: The world price could be less, and if it becomes less, this policy will be dealing unfairly with the farmers of Canada.
63260-304i


Walter Adam Tucker: What did the leader of the opposition mean, then, when he said that the agreement would blow up if prices went
below the price under the agreement?


William Henry Golding: I would like to remind hon. members that the hon. member who has the floor must not be interrupted unless with his consent.


James Garfield Gardiner: He should not ask
questions, then.


John Bracken: I did not say that the arrangement would blow up because Britain would not live up to the contract, or because Canada would not, but because they would both find' that it could not be carried out.


James Garfield Gardiner: Who will break it?


John Bracken: I would ask my hon.
friend, and he can answer now or later: if three years from now the price of wheat is $1.25, and you were a member of the House of Commons of Great Britain, would you support a policy which would pay Canada $1.55 for wheat?


Walter Adam Tucker: My answer is that my
attitude would be this: if I got wheat during part of the time at below the world price I would expect to pay more when the world price went below the minimum the agreement called for.


John Bracken: Well, if you did, you would be different from what the British people have been any time in the past.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not true.
. Mr. BRACKEN: The British people have not agreed to pay $1.55 when the world price of wheat is $1.25.


James Garfield Gardiner: They paid under those conditions for bacon in the first year of the war.


John Bracken: This agreement has
nothing to do with bacon.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is the same in principle.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They will hold to
their agreement.


John Bracken: Hon. members know that in the tough days of the thirties when the price of wheat in Canada was 60 cents a bushel, Britain was asked to pay a little more for it and the chief buyer of British wheat said, "No; so long as we can get wheat in Hungary or Roumania or India or any place in the world at a lower price we are not justified in paying any more for Canadian wheat."
Supply-Trade and Commerce


Walter Adam Tucker: That is the advantage of this agreement; she agrees to do something in regard to wheat.


John Bracken: If my hon. friend thinks that by our making this sacrifice now of 50 cents a bushel the British are going to pay 50 cents a bushel more than the world price two or three years from now, he may keep on thinking that.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I ask a question? What establishes the ."world price" which is being spoken of?


John Bracken: It does not matter what establishes it.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no grain
exchange open anywhere in Europe.


John Bracken: The question is, is there a world price or'is there not? Your board said that there is a world price of over $2; and if our grain exchange is closed, some other grain exchange may not be closed.


James Garfield Gardiner: They are all closed for wheat except one.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: They are not all closed.


John Bracken: Now with respect to the government's wheat policy generally, I make this criticism: it is not fair to the farmers, it is not fair to a quarter of the Canadian people, it is not fair-particularly-to those who are growing wheat. It is not fair because the price that is offered, $1.35, while there is a possibility that something more will be coming after the end of five years, there is no assurance that there will be. One dollar and thirty-five cents * is not a fair price for wheat to-day. It is not a "parity price", if I may use that hackneyed term. "Parity price", is the name given to a price which is supposed to express a fair price in relation to other things. The parity price now would be about $1.53, but $1.35 is all the farmers are assured, at a time when the world price is nearly half as high again as that. If the farmers of Canada cannot be assured of a parity price now, when the world price is high, what prospect is there of their being assured of parity price when the world price is low, as it is sure to be later on?	,
The government's policy during the last two or three years has been a policy generally of floors and ceilings. That has reduced the wide fluctuations of prices, and to that extent is gpod; it has raised the floors and lowered the ceilings. Now there is a modification of that policy. The government comes along with this price of $1.35, which as I have said is less than parity. The policy has been one of floors

and ceilings, but now it is one even more of a controlled economy; and when the government starts in to control the economy, then when things do not go right, or any inequity is brought about, the government has no one to blame but itself. This policy is not equitable. It does not assure equity to farmers, and this is one time when the government might have given them that assurance.
As I have said, the government's policy is one of no assurance of parity when the world price is high, and even less assurance when the world price is low. The government's policy is one of making agriculture carry the cost of the loss on this sale. It is not the nation that is carrying it. The nation's economy will suffer if it does not get as much for wheat as it might have got. But the price of the loss will be borne by the farmers. The government may say that the farmers are probably getting enough, but the fact is that this is a contribution by the farmers of Canada and not by the Canadian people as a whole. When you stop to think that on this one commodity the crop is sold at four different prices- wheat for flour at 78 cents, the so-called domestic price of $1.25, the British price of $1.55, and now the effort is being made to sell to other countries at over $2-you will realize that is very much of a hodge-podge, something which is most difficult to administer and does not work out equitably to the producers.
In closing I recognize that the wheat agreement is signed, signed by the officials of the United Kingdom and by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Whether it is good or bad, whether it is good in some respects and not as good as it might be in others, the fact remains that it has been signed and I am sure there is a desire on the part of everyone to carry it out. But with respect to the government's wheat price policies, other than those in the wheat agreement-the government, as I have said, has had an opportunity better than it has ever had to assure equity to agriculture. Whatever value $1.35 a bushel may have, it does not assure equity to agriculture at a time when equity could easily have been assured. If this policy, instead of declaring that the price will be $1.35 now for five years, had stipulated that it would be $1.55 now-such a price would for the time being have assured a reasonable degree of equity. But it does not do that. The government might have said that for five years it would agree that if the farmer's cost went up the price would go up and if the farmer's cost went down the price would go down; in other words, that it would adjust the price to the

Supply-Trade and Commerce
cost of things the farmers have to buy. That has not been done, and the opportunity to take a long step forward towards equity and justice and social and economic progress has been lost.
I suggest this to the government. The agreement has been signed, but the government can still say to the Canadian people: We will approve a price now of 81.55 a bushel and make it for five years, or three years or two years or one year, and if the farmer's cost goes up, as it. is likely to go up-because we cannot grant increases in costs to steel and labour; and all these other things without the farmer's cost going up-if the farmer's costs go up the price will be adjusted from year to year on the basis of these costs. Let it go higher if the costs are higher and lower if the costs are lower. If that were done we would have what every farmer has been wanting, and what every reasonable man in every other calling in the country has been wanting-equity, nothing more and nothing less. It might be difficult to assure that accurately in a free economy, but not so difficult in a controlled economy, or a semi-controlled economy as now. That is the only guarantee of real income stability to the farmer, and it has not been given. But it could be given, and I suggest that the government even yet agree to make the price $1.55 instead of $1.35 per bushel.


Major James William Coldwell: I have listened carefully both to the minister and to the leader of the opposition, and until the concluding sentences of the speech delivered by the latter gentleman I wondered what policy he would suggest. I may say at once that in regard to price I take a somewhat similar view, that at the present time the wheat agreement calls for the payment of $1.55 a bushel for the wheat that is sold to Britain and I believe that is nearer what we sometimes call a parity price. I believe the government would be well advised to consider this suggestion that, in the event of the costs of production rising for the next few years, as they will do largely because of the government's failure to maintain the ceilings, any difference there may be between what the farmer receives for his wheat and the increased cost of production should be made up out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.
We have signed an agreement with Great Britain, and I take a view the very opposite to that of the leader of the opposition. I believe that, having signed that agreement, the British will not, to use the word which I believe the hen. gentleman used, renege on the deal. It has been the history of Great Britain, with all her faults and failings in the past, that she has lived up to her obligations,
and one thing that has often been said is that the Britisher's word is his bond. I am convinced that this agreement will be fulfilled to the full by any British government which happens to be in power for the next several years.


James Garfield Gardiner: Will my hon. friend permit a question? I understood him to say he considered that parity was somewhere around $1.50 or $1.55. I think it was fairly well admitted that prior to the increase in implement prices and labour which has recently taken place, parity would probably be about $1.41 or $1.42-somewhere around there. The point I wanted to raise was this. The situation has again changed materially in relation to, say, implement prices by the fact that the ten per cent exchange adjustment has been made, which will result in implements coming from the United States being sold at ten per cent less. I am given to understand that a combine is selling at $160 less than before that change was made, which means that all implements made in this country will have to come down too. What we call parity, adjusted from day to day, would be a very difficult thing to apply to wheat, and what we are presuming of course is that for a four-year period parity will probably work out at what we figured it at during the last four or five years-$1.41 rather than $1.55-and it is on that basis that the discussion took place, whether the advance should be $1.35 or $1.40. The farmers organization argued that to put it at parity it should be $1.40, and that is parity over a long period, not a week or a month. It will be agreed by most persons that a parity figure that should be finally used in criticism of the agreement as it works out would be rather a four-year parity than a four weeks or a four months parity.


Major James William Coldwell: What I had in mind was that the cost of living, according to the figures of the bureau of statistics, has increased by five points in the last three months, and I was making the point that if this increase continues, an adjustment should be made. If what the minister says is correct and parity over the period of the agreement should be in the neighbourhood of $1.40 or $1.35, or whatever it may be, of course that would be a different story, but the point I think I made quite clearly was that if costs of production and costs of living continue to rise, a compensatory adjustment should be made out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada. We cannot go back to Great Britain and say they will have to pay more, or we would be doing what the leader of the
Supply-Trade and Commerce

opposition thinks Britain might do under other circumstances, when he suggested they might be inclined to renege on the deal.


James Garfield Gardiner: Might I just complete the story-


John Bracken: I did not say Britain was reneging on the deal.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: You used the word
"renege".


John Bracken: I said she might.


Major James William Coldwell: Well, I do not think it is a possibility.


John Bracken: What I said was that
in this agreement there is no assurance that Britain will pay more than the world price later on.


Major James William Coldwell: If that does not mean that Great Britain will renege on her deal, I do not know what it does mean.


John Bracken: No. I said it was not in the contract.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I say just one more word on the other point?


Major James William Coldwell: I hope, Mr. Chairman, you are considering these interruptions in connection with my time, though I do not expect to take forty minutes.


James Garfield Gardiner: We shall not insist on the matter of time, and anyway we are in committee. What I want to point out is that under the floor price measure-that is not the proper name, but it will do-we stated to the house that $200,000,000 was being provided for the purpose of taking care of any adjustments in connection with what might be known as parity on other farm products. At the same time we stated to the house that similar arrangements would be made if necessary, through the wheat board, in connection with grain. I just want to point out that provision is made in another way.


Major James William Coldwell: I am glad to know that provision is made should circumstances arise making it necessary. I was not aware of that, and I doubt very much whether other hon. members were aware that this was the interpretation which might be placed upon the previous statement made by the minister.
I was amazed to hear the leader of the opposition accuse the government of attempting by this agreement to end the policy of selling cheap wheat to countries other than Britain. Surely if the farmers of western Canada have suffered at all they suffered particularly during the years from 1930 to 1939

or later from the policy of selling cheap wheat. Why, we know in western Canada that on one occasion at' Fort William wheat went down to 38 cents a bushel for No. 1 northern, which meant at the country points in my own constituency, for example, that No. 1 northern was worth 20 cents a bushel. If that is what this agreement ends, then I am all for this agreement, and I am surprised to hear the leader of the opposition or anyone else in the house suggest that the agreement ends the policy of selling cheap wheat to countries other than Britain. I hope it does end that policy for all time.
Let me comment briefly upon another provision which I regret is in the agreement, because I do think it leads to a tremendous amount of misunderstanding. I refer to the clause which permits Great Britain to sell or otherwise dispose of the wheat. I wish we could get a fuller explanation of what that clause means. But I bear in mind that very recently Britain herself surrendered 200,000,000 tons of foodstuffs to feed the starving people of western Europe, particularly the people of her former enemy, Germany. If you look up the statistics you will find that practically half a billion dollars was spent on food by Britain, not for resale to the distressed nations but in order to relieve starvation on the continent of Europe; half a billion dollars of the money of the British taxpayers was spent for that purpose. I hope this clause in the agreement is an indication of an intention to continue that kind of humanitarian policy.
Now I want to say to the Minister of Agriculture that even if conversion comes late I am glad it does come. I look back over the years before the war and during the war when those of us in this party advocated agreements of this type, and I remember the minister rising in his place and denouncing such agreements, stating that open market trading set a price which was fair and reasonable for the commodity sold. I did not have time to look through all the records, but I recall that in 1939, for example -and I chose a year before the war-in foreshadowing legislation following the Turgeon report, the minister said at page 1037 of Hansard for that year:
. . . we intend to introduce legislation which will carry out as far as possible the recommendations of the Turgeon commission, which were:
First, that the government should remain out of the grain trade and our wheat should be marketed by means of the futures market system.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
I shall read the other two paragraphs, though they have little bearing:
Second, that the grain exchange should be placed under proper supervision.
Third, that encouragement be given to the creation of cooperative marketing associations or pools.
Then in explanation the minister went on:
We cannot agree that there is likely to be permanency to any system of marketing farm products which is based upon price fixing. We prefer to embark upon a policy which will lead to costs of production and standards of product which will invite a paying market for all our farm products.
I am pleased indeed that the minister has come to the conclusion that another policy is better than the one he outlined at that time. May I also add that I think this policy is in conformity with what is being done by other countries. After all, we have to view realistically the situation in which we find ourselves, and when realism demands a change of policy then that change must be made.
I think the wheat agreement is a very important step in the attempt to achieve stability in the price of wheat to the western grower. I have just come back from western Canada. As the minister indicated, he also came back a day or two ago. We had a national convention, at. which I met a good many representative farmers other than the delegates who were there. Being interested in this wheat agreement, and having given some approval to it before to-day, naturally I was interested in finding out what was the reaction on the part of the people whom I have known for a good many years. I found, as the minister found, that while the western farmer thinks, as I indicated earlier, that the price to him now Should be higher, none the less he feels that this agreement makes for some stability in the production and marketing of wheat, and that he is now relieved from the dangers from which he suffered during the period immediately following the last war, when 'he saw the price of wheat drop from nearly $3 a bushel down to slightly over SI a bushel in approximately twelve months. And he realizes that if he can get a stable market at a stable price which is adequate to maintain a reasonable and decent standard of living, in the long run he will be better off than if he took a high price now and a low price two years from now. And I say that so far as it is designed to achieve stability, it should meet with this parliament's approval. Regardless of what Great Britain may pay in the last two years, it guarantees an initial price of $1.35 a bushel for the period of the agreement. And at the end of that period I believe we shall be able to look back and
say that, in all certainty, this agreement did give a measure of stability, and perhaps protected the farmers-as I shall show later on -from some of the dangers inherent in the present world situation. This of course is vitally important to the Canadian farmer, and may be even more important in the later years of the agreement.
But while we are dealing with our overseas customers, the farmer is entitled to expect that the government will set the same price .for our millers on the wheat used in the domestic market. I believe that is the universal opinion of western wheat growers, and I suggest the government would be well advised to reconsider that phase of its policy. After all, an increase from approximately 78 cents to $1.35 per bushel, even if it were carried into the price of a loaf of bread, would not mean more than a rise of one cent in the price of that loaf in this country. While bread is a very important commodity, I do not think that under any circumstances our farmers should be called upon as a group in any way to assist in doing something that the whole of Canada should do. Therefore I suggest that that phase of government policy should be reconsidered.
During the war farmers were called upon to produce under great difficulties, and to make great sacrifices. We should not now ask them to continue to make sacrifices. They are entitled now to a price, and a guarantee in price, which will give them a proper return for their labour and enable them to live as well as those who live decently and well in our urban centres. And when I refer to a proper standard of living I am thinking of the standard of those who live decently and well in urban centres.
The price at which our wheat is being sold to Great Britain at the present time is $1.55. Again the criticism is made that this is below the United States price. I believe that yesterday the Minister of Agriculture was clear and also wise in placing before the committee the fact that it was the United States price we were talking about, not what is sometimes called the world price. But whatever the United States price is to-day, it may well be that during the course of this agreement there may be a spectacular fall in world prices, which, without the protection of an agreement of this kind, might prove disastrous to the farmers of Canada. But, as I warned a moment ago, if the cost of production rises there must be some compensatory payment to the farmers of Canada, apart altogether from the British agreement.
Supply-Trade and Commerce

What the farmers need, and what we in this party have always urged, is a parity price. I do not know how hon. members would define that expression, because there are a good many definitions of it. But the one I always keep in mind is this, that a parity price is one which bears direct relationship to other costs in the economy-costs of production, costs of living, and the like. I admit immediately that this involves a considerable amount of economic and social planning.
This particular feature of the matter, namely the parity price and a decent standard of living, is important. We must not overlook the fact that while the government guarantees to take all the wheat delivered in the crop year
1946-47, after that time the farmers may be put on a quota of deliveries amounting to fourteen bushels per seeded acre, if and when required.


An hon. MEMBER:: Authorized.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, authorized. If that should occur it means of course that the returns from wheat may be lower than would maintain the standard of living to which I have referred. I know that the average production of wheat on our western farms over a period of years is slightly over 15 bushels to the acre-15 - 7 I think it is. Perhaps if we were to deduct the seed, the amount that is fed, and averaged the remainder over the entire area, the average might be about 14 bushels to the acre.	*


James Garfield Gardiner: It actually is.


Major James William Coldwell: I want to be fair in my discussion of this particular phase of the matter. Obviously-and the interjection of the Minister of Agriculture when the leader of the opposition was speaking emphasizes it -there is no further use for a Winnipeg grain exchange. To keep it open to play with rye, with coarse grains, or even with a surplus of 'wheat, would, I think, mean that all we were doing was maintaining an institution which has outlived any usefulness. We know perfectly well that in other countries exchanges of the type of our grain exchange are being closed. One of the greatest in the world, the cotton exchange in Great Britain, was closed permanently not long ago. I believe the Liverpool grain exchange will not reopen.
The success of this agreement will depend upon the grain situation in the world in a few years, and in this respect I think the agreement may be a valuable protection for our western farmers. Canada's exports of machinery alone, as placed on record the other day by the hon. member for Melfort,

indicate the extent to which mechanization is going on in countries which were not mechanized before the war.
W'hen I was in Great Britain in the autumn of 1944 I had the privilege of flying from Prestwick to London. Upon arriving there I remarked that, having been born in that country and having lived there until I was about twenty-one years of age, and knowing the rural districts of England rather well- because all my relatives were engaged in agriculture-I had been amazed while flying over that country to see the degree of cultivation which had taken place. I was amazed to see that there were actually combines operating in some of the fields. When on a subsequent occasion I made these observations to a member of the British government he said, "Great Britain is now the most highly mechanized agricultural community in the whole world." One finds it difficult to believe that, but the figures were produced to show that with their tractors and their high-powered farm equipment they had become at least one of the most highly mechanized agricultural countries in the world. In the same autumn we crossed parts of Europe and saw the difference there. For instance, in France we saw farmers cultivating their land with walking-ploughs pulled by a cow and a horse hitched together-using the most primitive methods of cultivation. And yet we know that even under these circumstances, prior to the war France was able to export wheat- and indeed, exported considerable quantities of it in some years. But now, with the feverish attempt to grow cereals in order to feed the starving population of Europe, these countries are mechanizing to an extent undreamed of a few years ago. We know what Russia was able to do in a few years of mechanization. In the semi-arid regions of North Africa-and wheat is a semi-arid plant -they are placing large new acreages under cultivation and using new and high-powered machinery. Australia and the Argentine republic will not in all likelihood suffer from another severe drought in the next few years and we may again see accumulations of wheat pile up. This agreement would then protect our western farmers to an extent that, may be very valuable to them in the years to come.
As the minister said yesterday, the records show that this will mean that for the four years we shall be guaranteed a market for sixty per cent more wheat than Great Britain was buying before the war. I have not looked it up, but I think my memory serves me correctly when I say that the banner year before the war in our exports of wheat to the United Kingdom was around1 102 million

Supply-Trade and Commerce
bushels, although I am not quite sure of that figure. But I do know that the statement is correct that this will give our western farmer an assured market for an average of sixty per cent more than we exported to Great Britain before the war. This would be a great advantage to us should surpluses accumulate.
May I remark to the leader of the opposition and to my friends of the Winnipeg Free Press that they are clinging to an outworn philosophy of trade when they follow the principle of laissez faire. There is no question about it that we shall never come back again to the old methods of trade. Governments will not allow their basic supplies to remain in the hands of speculative interests who are concerned not with the welfare of the people of the world but only with the making of profits out of the needs of the community.
In Europe, which is our principal customer, governments of all types are engaged in protecting their people against the fluctuations brought about by speculation. I know that those of us who believe that are often accused of pinning our faith to what is called bilateralism. I do not think this is bilateralism. A bilateral agreement would mean that if we were to sell Great Britain 160 or 150 or 140 million bushels of wheat at a given price, we would undertake to take from Great Britain at the same time an amount of British goods which would substantially cancel the value of the goods we were sending to.Britain. That, substantially, would be a bilateral agreement. To my mind an agreement of this kind may actually break open the markets of the world and lead to a new form of multilateral trade. That is what I hope and have always hoped, and that is what I believe will happen. As long as we have socialist governments-and they are going to continue in power and grow in power across the world-they will not allow their people to become the victims of speculation in essential commodities.
I should like to note one feature of the agreement which may be of value to us and to the world. Provision is made for entry into a world wheat agreement if and when it can be reached. I hope that such a world agreement can be reached, because it would be beneficial not only to Canada but to all the world. Our government has been forced by the trend of events to consider and accept an agreement of this kind and I know it will be forced further along this path.
If we want to maintain, not only adequate farm prices but an adequate standard: of living for our workers, we shall have to have more and more not of regimentation but of the
kind of democratic control that is needed foi our economy. This means that we shall have to plan our economy more closely than ever. At the moment these agreements are not sufficiently inclusive of Canadian products. We want to maintain high levels of employment, which depend upon high standards of living on the farm. High standards of living on the farm depend upon high levels of employment. But an over-all plan could do these things, so that an agreement of this sort would not fail.
I do not want to say much more, except that with the qualifications I have given I welcome this agreement. I believe I am speaking for the great majority of my supporters and the supporters of this movement when I say that to the extent to which it will achieve stability in this great commodity which we produce in such vast quantities, to that extent it will be beneficial. No one can foretell the future, but the value or otherwise of this agreement will be known in the course of the next four years.
I am prepared to say that if the government makes the provisions that I have mentioned for necessary adjustments, it will be beneficial. Before I sit down I must say I am certain that the present British government which negotiated it, or any successor to that government will honour the signatures to this agreement.


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: If the committee is not ready to pass this item, I should like to suggest that it stand and then we could come back to it after the Minister of Agriculture has had an opportunity to have considered by the committee the few remaining items there are in agriculture.


Mr.   BOSS@Souris: Are we not going to finish this item, now that we are on it? Several of us have made arrangements to be here when this item was being discussed.


James Angus MacKinnon: The Minister of Agriculture is leaving for England and the continent this afternoon. We have broken into the ordinary business of the house yesterday and to-day in order to enable this particular item in trade and commerce to be discussed while the Minister of Agriculture is here.


John Bracken: I think the committee will wish to make it possible for the Minister of Agriculture to get away and also to deal with the remaining items in his department. Could that not foe done and still have this item dealt with to-day?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have four items left, and I do not think they should take more than five or ten minutes. The minister is suggesting
Supply-Agriculture

that after he makes a short statement this item be allowed to stand, and then after the other items have been cleaned up we could come back to it.


John Bracken: Are we assured that it will be dealt with to-day? That is all we want over here.


Major James William Coldwell: The Minister of Agriculture has indicated that there will not be a prolonged discussion on the four remaining items in his department. If we have the assurance that following those four items the Minister of Trade and Commerce will come back to this item, that will be satisfactory.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We will do that.


James Angus MacKinnon: Just before this item stands I should like to take this opportunity to answer a question asked by the hon. member for Battle River, and also a suggested question by the leader of the opposition. The hon. member for Battle River asked whether shippers and exporters are being paid commissions by the Canadian wheat board.


Mr. FAIR:: I want to set the minister straight. I did not refer to shippers and exporters; I asked about brokers and commission merchants.


James Angus MacKinnon: I think I will cover it in my answer. My understanding was that the inquiry had reference to shippers and exporters. Shippers and exporters have not been paid any commission since the market was closed in 1943. The brokers and exporters were paid commissions on work they did in connection with the wheat board up until a year ago, when these payments were discontinued. Where purchases for export are made through brokers and exporters I am informed that the usual commission is charged the purchaser, but there is no charge on the wheat board and of course no charge directly or indirectly on the wheat producer.
As to the 14-bushel restriction on the authorized acreage, which is between 21 and 22 million acres, there are no restrictions on delivery in 1945-46 and no restrictions on delivery in 1946-47. The 14-bushel limitation as it stands in the government's new programme is designed not to restrict total deliveries over a period of years but rather to meet the problems which might arise if we had an exceptionally large crop, say of 550 million bushels in any one year. In such circumstances the limitation would be useful in securing an equitable delivery as between the 240,000 wheat producers. It would protect the wheat grower who lives five or six miles away

from his elevator, who would thus be able to deliver his share of the crop as well as the farmer who lives close to the elevator.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this item be allowed to stand.	.
Item stands.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE J/81. Seed export office, $35,688.


Mr. WRIGHT:: Has the minister any figures on the exports of grass seed, clover seed and other seeds during the past year?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am sorry I have not the figures here.


Percy Ellis Wright: Would the minister have them placed on Hansard later on?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, I will have the figures placed on Hansard later.


Mr. SENN:: Will the same machinery for handling the export of seeds be in operation this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: Approximately the same. There may be some slight changes.


Mark Cecil Senn: Have the prices been set for the export of seed, or will they be set later?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am advised by the official who has just come in that it is the intention to discontinue the seed export office. That is contrary to the answer I gave a moment ago.


Mark Cecil Senn: Why is that change being made? Is seed for export not going to be handled in the same way?


James Garfield Gardiner: The decision reached was that the time had come for the government to step out of this business and turn it back to the trade where it had been prior to the war, and allow the trade to handle the exports in the same way they did before.


Mark Cecil Senn: We in Ontario from time to time have to depend on western seed, particularly alfalfa. Are measures to be taken to see that enough seed is kept in the country to supply our needs in eastern Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: The permit system is to continue. Permits have to be secured in order to export seed. That would take care of any shortage in Canada should it develop. Reverting to the question asked a few moments ago by the hon. member for Melfort, he will find the figures he asked for on page 18 of the annual report of the Canadian Seed Growers Association for 1945.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
482. Grosse isle research project, $80,000.
Mr. BRYCE:: Will the minister give an outline of this project?


James Garfield Gardiner: This is a very special project which was established during the war to investigate and check the spread of disease by microbes and that kind of thing. That work is being continued.	*


Mr. CHARLTON:: It is not often that I congratulate the minister, but I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate him on the work that is being done by the pathological laboratory in Hull on rinderpest which is one of the most serious diseases afflicting cattle and which causes heavy losses particularly among cattle in Asia and Africa. As transport in China is largely carried on by cattle, the loss is of very great importance to them, and I understand that through the work of the research laboratory in Hull thousands of vaccines have been sent to China. The laboratory deserves a great deal of credit, and I wish to congratulate the minister upon the work it has done.


Mr. ARGUE:: From the information which the minister has at this time about crop conditions in western Canada, can he say whether the Prairie Farm Assistance Act will be applied this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not in a position to say at the moment, because that matter has not been presented to the government. There are areas in western Canada, particularly the area from which the hon. member comes, which have suffered greatly from drought, and the matter will have to be considered. I cannot give any more definite answer now.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
375. Wheat and grain division, $28,532.
James Arthur Ross: There are a few points in connection with the United Kingdom wheat agreement which have not been dealt with. I was interested in the suggestion of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar that any future increases in production costs should be taken care of out of consolidated revenue. I am sure that he realizes just as well as anybody else from western Canada that production costs are increasing every few days. We have had an implement cost increasewe have other items which are increasing almost daily the cost of production to the farmers, and I am sure these increases wdll continue for some time.
I was interested also in the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture about parity. I assume
when he said that before the increase in the price of implements parity might be $1.41 or $1.42, he meant net to the farmer. The actual price, despite this export price of SI.55, which the farmer will be receiving is on an average $1.17 a bushel.


James Garfield Gardiner: I meant $1.41 at Fort
William.


James Arthur Ross: That also has a
bearing on the suggestion of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, because twenty cents a bushel is held back now, that being the difference between the export price of $1.55 and the initial payment, which is $1.35. I imagine that when that is held by the government for five years, it is a safeguard to average up the price in case there is a great decline at that time; therefore it will be the producer who will be carrying the added cost.
As has been pointed out, we have a rather difficult set-up from an administrative point of view. It is a complicated dish which the government has handed the farmer in the present wheat bill. The present floor price is $1 a bushel, the domestic price is $1.25, the initial payment is $1.35, the export price is $1.55, and the miller's price is $2.05 a bushel. On flour for domestic consumption in Canada the federal treasury has subsidized the miller for the difference between $1.25 per bushel and 77f cents, which is 47f cents a bushel to the consumer. I think it is understood that in this country we consume in flour the equivalent of sixty million bushels of wheat a year, and the difference between the $1.55 export price and $1.25 is 30 cents a bushel, which means a loss to the producer of some $18 million annually which he must bear over and above his share of the taxation for the 47 and a fraction cents a bushel. Then, the initial payment of $1.35 basis No. 1 Fort William actually means that the average payment the farmer would receive at country elevators is $1.17 per bushel. The difference between that initial payment and the export price of $1.55 to Britain is, as I said, twenty cents a bushel, which the Canadian government propose through the wheat board to keep from the farmer for the period of the next five years. One dollar and seventeen cents has a very low purchasing power under present conditions in Canada, and it is what the proceeds of a bushel of wheat will purchase for the farmer in goods and services that really counts. That is this basis of parity which we try to arrive at. The purchasing power of a bushel of wheat has increased only six per cent since 1913, whereas the hourly wages of Canadian industrial
Supply-Trade and Commerce

will be that the wheat producer will find himself in an impossible position long before the contract is terminated.
If the minister thinks my remarks have not been proper, I would ask him why the government deems it necessary to retain the twenty cents a bushel for a period of five years. I would also ask whether any of the subsidy paid by the government to the millers for domestic flour applies to flour which will be sent over under the contract to Britain. If not, how is the difference arrived at? Will the minister be good enough to answer those questions?


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: May I ask a question with regard to paragraph Ob) on page 2 of the agreement? It is stated that for the last two years the prices as set are for the 1948-49 crop, not less than 81.25 for the last year, and not less than $1. I quote:
The actual prices to be paid for wheat to be bought and sold within the crop year 1948-49 shall be negotiated and settled between the United Kingdom government and the Canadian government.
Has the minister any formula as a basis for the negotiations?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is stated there, if the hon. gentleman will read further.


George Hugh Castleden: It is stated that the actual price to be paid- is to be a matter of negotiation. The prices of wheat to be bought and sold within the crop year 1949-50 shall be negotiated and settled not later than December 31, 1948. Then it says:
In determining the prices for these two crop years, 1948-49 and 1949-50, the United Kingdom government will have regard to any difference between the prices paid under this agreement-
-And world prices. It simply says that they "will have regard". But is there any formula?


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. gentleman has not read the whole statement:
In determining the prices for these two crop years, 1948-49 and 1949-50, the United Kingdom government will have regard to any difference between the prices paid under this agreement in the 1946-47 and 1947-48 crop years and the world prices for wheat in the 1946-47 and 194748 crop years.
That was to give expression to a matter that was fully discussed as between Canada and Gi eat Britain, and we on behalf of the government-that is, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and myself-suggested that in view of the fact that Great Britain was going to get wheat at some margin below the world price in 1946-47, they should be prepared, no matter whether wheat is below or above $1.25 or even above $1.55, to take into consideration any advantage that they get by obtaining 
wheat at a low level during these first two years. Without any reservations whatsoever those with whom we were discussing it came right back and said, "That is absolutely fair. We would have no reason for refusing to do it, and we ought to do it." They put that in these words, in order to express fully their intention, and I am in full agreement with the leader of the C.C.F. when he says that our negotiations and dealings with the British, right from the beginning of the war, have been such as to indicate that anything they put in writing in this form will be carried out, either by the present government or by any other government that may be in power. I am quite sure that will be done.


George Hugh Castleden: You admit they will take it into consideration, but no actual basis is set put.


James Garfield Gardiner: No; the actual basis will have to be established in the light of the facts as they are at the time. Still I am satisfied that the British would say this: "If we got the wheat at 20 or 30 cents a bushel less than the world price during that period, certainly we are prepared to negotiate a satisfactory basis." I do not think they would say they would consider the difference to the extent of 100 per cent and go on that basis; it would depend on the number of bushels they were buying. One fact has been missed in all these discussions. On an average the British buy 200,000,000 bushels a year. This 160,000.000 bushels does not feed them; they buy 200,000,000 bushels a year to feed themselves, and this year it is proved, and shown by all the records that have been put out by the united nations, that Britain must have 195.000,000 bushels. Britain was insistent on buying 180,000,000 bushels from us. They were quite prepared to put that right in the agreement; but in the early stages of the negotiations we did not know whether we were going to have 180,000,000 bushels to sell them, so we said we did not want to put something into the agreement we might not be able to carry out, so as a result somebody might say we had broken the agreement. We got down to a figure representing the quantity we were certain we could supply. I think it is most difficult to anticipate that Britain, requiring 200,000,000 bushels of wheat and having purchased 160,000.000 bushels, is going to sell some of the 160,000.000 bushels that she has bought for $1.55 and buy some more at $2. I would begin to wonder about this hard trading of the British if they did that. Therefore I do not place very much importance in the argument which has been advanced along those lines. On this other point they have

Supply-Trade and Commerce
definitely said, "We know we are getting the wheat at a lower price, in the first year in any case. We do not know what is going to happen in the second year." If we were to get a crop of 550,000,000 bushels, as it looked three weeks ago-I would say twenty-five per cent has been cut off since then-there is no doubt in my mind that the price of wheat would have gone down in the second year of this contract, not the third. All these conditions develop as we go along, and the British say that taking into consideration what may happen throughout the period of the agreement, if they get an advantage in the first two years they are going to take that into consideration in whatever price is negotiated for the last two years.


John Bracken: May I ask the minister just one question about this 160,000,000 bushels coming from Canada and purchased by Britain? Will the minister say all that wheat will be consumed in Britain?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, I will not say all of it will be consumed in Britain, because I would expect that what was mentioned here this morning may happen again, and provision is written into the contract for it to happen. One of the objections to this contract was that the united nations may come along and say that Britain cannot have this much wheat, in order that someone else may not starve. It has been written right into the contract that if Britain desires to give up some of her wheat in order to feed somebody else, she can give it away if she likes. On the same premise she can sell it at a lower price than $1.55, or she can dispose of it in any way she sees fit in order to help feed the world. But when it comes to the question of Britain disposing of it just as a matter of making money, there is no way in which she can do that unless wheat goes away below what it is to-day.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to repeat the arguments advanced this morning by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) or the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross), both of whom set forth clearly the position of the opposition in respect of this agreement.
May I say ait the outset that having regard to the vast extent of the operations of the Canadian wheat board, the time has come for the board to give a full accounting
of its transactions between 1937 and 1945. This is of general interest and of general demand throughout western Canada. So far no statement of the kind has been secured from the board.
In 1943 an action was initiated by Arthur Henry Oatway in Manitoba against the Canadian wheat board asking for an accounting in respect of certain years. Application to the courts was made on behalf of the wheat board that the action be set aside on the ground that no action lay as against the wheat board in that it was an emanation of the crown. The application was dismissed by the judge who heard the motion. The wheat board appealed to the court of appeal in Manitoba, and that court, by a majority of one, allowed the appeal and held that proceedings against the Canadian wheat board for an accounting could not be taken. An appeal was carried to the Supreme Court of Canada, at which time the government took an attitude which I think is totally inexcusable. An order in council was passed denying anyone the right to ask for an accounting from the wheat board. In other words that order in council assured silence in regard to what actually took place between 1937 and 1944. I say the time has come when a complete statement should be given-not an ex parte statement such as at the present time-by the wheat board setting forth in detail its conduct, and also subjecting itself and its officials to full examination.
There are various ways in which our wheat may be disposed of. I am surprised to see the change of attitude on the part of the government in adopting a bilateral agreement, because for the past several years the attitude of the government has been that multilateral agreements are the only salvation for world peace. As a matter of fact that was the principle behind the formation of the food and agricultural organization of the united nations. It was one of the main principles in the Atlantic charter, and of the united nations enunciated at San Francisco.
Another means of'disposing of our wheat would be to build up in this country a population which will consume much of the Canadian wheat which to-day must be shipped to Europe if it is to find a market. Our position in western Canada is that we have to ship our wheat, bacon and other products four or five thousand miles to get a market among the millions of people in Europe and elsewhere. I believe the time has come when this parliament should face the issue, and that instead of our continuing to find markets abroad a policy of selective immigration should be institiuted, thereby bringing a larger market to our own country.
Supply-Trade and Commerce

I am not alone in that point of view. For Canada to follow the course which apparently she is following, the country being maintained for Canadians or the descendants of those who originally came here, is to make this country the target for any future aggressor nation. We are not developing the resources we have and we cannot develop them if we follow the present system of simply keeping within Canada the people who are here, subject to the present tremendous exodus of native-born Canadians to the United States. By continuing that policy the government will be making Canada's position such that aggressor-minded countries which have not ample supplies of food and natural resources will look to Canada with envious eyes.
We have the land; we have the resources to be developed. According to the Minister of Agriculture, speaking in February in Regina- and the government has been strangely silent about this matter since the beginning of the session-the solution for many of our problems would be for Canada to have a population sufficiently large to consume at least sixty per cent of our wheat crop. That was his statement in Regina, and he added that western Canada itself needs six million people more than it has to-day if it is to utilize the natural resources available for development.
The present situation in Canada demands an aggressive policy of immigration, strictly selective and controlled to the end that the numbers brought in here shall be able to maintain themselves and not put people in our country out of work. I know there are those who say we cannot have that to-day because of a lack of transportation. Well, sir, none of our ancestors came over on the Queen Mary. They came on whatever ships were available, and people are willing to come to-day, however lowly the ship facilities, from all parts of the world, good citizens, to help us solve a problem which can be solved only if we have a larger population.


The CHAIRMAN:: I do not wish to restrict the hon. member too severely, but I must remind him that we are discussing an item in the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce dealing with wheat. I do not think there should be at this time a general discussion on immigration.


John George Diefenbaker: No; I was only offering an alternative suggestion to the agreement, which I must point out, sir, is not receiving the approval of western farmers to the extent we have heard in this debate-if the attitude of the farmers in my constituency is any criterion of the opinion of farmers generally throughout the west. What I have
{Mr. Diefenbaker.]
been offering is an alternative to the agreement, an alternative which would have the effect of building up this country on the strong and firm basis of a home market which would consume a large proportion of our production.' You have ruled, Mr. Chairman, that I may not discuss this alternative. You are always fair and I shall abide by your ruling and will deal with immigration on another occasion at greater length.
As I said a moment ago, multilateral agreements among the nations of the world was the basis of the food and agriculture organization of the united nations, and yet Canada is the first nation to depart from the principle we accepted at San Francisco, namely, multilateral rather than bilateral agreements so that discrimination, unfairness and potential economic warfare shall not come to the world again.
So far as this agreement is concerned I would repeat the criticisms of the hon. member for Souris set out in the most able and constructive address he gave to-day, and I should like to add to them. The agreement is unfair to the Canadian farmer; it is unfair to the producer. It is said that by selling now for fifty cents per bushel lower, after a period of years we shall have built up a credit in gratitude and as a result the nations favoured will grant higher prices when commodity prices and the wheat prices come down. That is the excuse that is given to-day. Again I should like to quote from the Winnipeg Free Press, which has always had the ear of the government. It gives the reason as follows:
The Canadian farmers are being denied the going price not in behalf of British consumers but because of domestic price control.
In other words, the excuse is that we are going to help Britain; the reason is that the government is endeavouring to maintain price control here in Canada.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Both are good reasons.


John George Diefenbaker: Both are good
reasons, says my hon. friend, but the government has not taken both; it has taken only one of them. There was some comment to-day in regard to my leader having in any way suggested that Britain had ever been untrue to her responsibilities or to her pledged word. An attempt was made by the leader of the
C.C.F. to castigate the leader of the Progressive Conservative party for taking a stand against Britain. I say to you that this party has not had to make any apologies, since 1939 or before, for its attitude with respect to Great Britain. When my hon. friend castigates the leader of the opposition he seems to forget, and I know many of his own friends did

Supply-Trade and Commerce
not follow him in this viewpoint, the enunciation of the policy of the C.C.F. party which was made on September 9, 1939.


George Hugh Castleden: By whom?


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friends do not want me to deal with that, I presume, but I would refer them-


George Hugh Castleden: Just deal properly
with it.


John George Diefenbaker: I will deal properly with it. Perhaps I can put the record straight.
I should like to quote from page 55 of Hansard of September 9, 1939, where the policy of the C.C.F. party at that time is set forth. My hon. friend has cast aspersions at the head of this party when he used words to this effect: Where do you stand with reference to Britain? My answer: We stand to-day where we stood in September, 1939. Here is the record, and I quote from page 55:
In further detail the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation places the following construe-tive proposals before the house, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) asked hon. members to do when he spoke yesterday, these
1.	Economic assistance:	Canada is well fitted
to make an important contribution through economic assistance. However, in the interests of Canada's economic future and for the protection of her people, the expansion of war industries must be strictly controlled. Moreover, such economic assistance-


Percy Ellis Wright: On a point of order, has this anything to do with the wheat agreement?


William Ross Macdonald: I do not think the discussion should go too far, but this morning the leader of the C.C.F. group referred to this matter and I think at least one member of the official opposition should have the right to reply.	*


John George Diefenbaker: It is all epitomized in four paragraphs, and it will not take long. I quote:
Moreover, such economic assistance should be conditional upon immediate steps being taken to place the burden upon the shoulders of those best able to bear it.
2.	Defence of Canada:	Reasonable provision
should be made for the defence of Canadian shores. Volunteers for home defence should not be required to sign also for overseas service. This practice, now being followed, is unwarranted and should be abandoned.
3.	No military participation overseas:	Any
attempt to send a force abroad would rob us of the man-power necessary for the defence of our shores and for home production, would gravely endanger national unity, would threaten our civil liberties and democratic institutions, and would ultimately lead to conscription.
That was the policy of the party. I do not think I will read any more, because-


An hon. MEMBER:: Read the rest.
Mr. MaeINNIS: Read the rest. You have the floor in order to put in your case. This is not a court of law; this is not a police court.


John George Diefenbaker: It is a strange thing that when my hon. friends cast aspersions on this side of the house they object to being [DOT] answered with the truth.
Mr. MaeINNIS: We should have all of it.


John George Diefenbaker: Now that I have clarified that situation, let me proceed.
Mr. MaeINNIS: All of it.


John George Diefenbaker: I have no objection to reading more, because it is not very long. There are only three pages. My hon. friends apparently have forgotten it. I have referred . them to the pages, and they can look them up. They will find them intensely interesting after the lapse of some years. It will be remembered that this morning the leader of the
C.C.F. said that realism demands on occasion a change of viewpoint-and I thought, with what authority he spoke! Having answered his criticism, may I return once more to the agreement.


Mrs. STRUM:: We did not change our name, though.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not hear the interruption, so I cannot answer it. In the future this agreement may well cause antagonism between the mother country and this country. If prices are higher than $1 or $1.25 at the end of three or four years and negotiation is proceeded with to determine a price and the price is finally concluded at $1 or $1.25, a price below the then world price, then there will be ill feeling among the producers of this country. On the other hand, as my leader pointed out this morning, if world prices are lower than the minimum prices having to be accepted by the United Kingdom, there will be a feeling of resentment by the other party to the agreement.
AVe must guard against the arousing of international antagonisms through bilateral agreements, and at all costs against potential antagonism between Canada and the United Kingdom. Can we complain that Denmark has taken a large share of our bacon market in the old country through a bilateral agreement with Britain when we ourselves are discriminating against other nations by making this bilateral agreement? Is it any wonder that Mr. Strachey, the British food minister, said in reference to the agreement with Denmark:
We have had to ask for tolerance and under^ standing from our dominion suppliers.
Supply-Trade and Commerce

Canada gave the lead in bilateral agreements, and now we are starting to reap in this country, in the agreement with Denmark respecting bacon, what we have sown under this agreement.
Can there be any justification for Britain receiving under this agreement some 57,000,000 bushels of wheat more than she ordinarily purchases from Canada, and having it for sale, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Souris, being able to place that wheat in competition with Canadian wheat on the markets of the world? If there is to be a subsidy in favour of th'e mother country- and I am not raising any objection to that at the moment; if Britain is to be permitted to purchase wheat from us at 50 cents a bushel less than the world price, that subsidy should not be placed on the shoulders of our wheat-producing farmers but on the people of Canada as a whole.
I come to another criticism, and this was referred to by the hon. member for Souris. Is there any excuse whatsoever for the wheat board retaining twenty cents a bushel of the farmer's price this year for a period of five years and holding it undistributed, without interest just holding it back from the farmer as it has been held back for the last few years? It is in effect a forced loan to the government from the farmers of this country who are producing wheat amounting to approximately 8108,000,000. This twenty cents a bushel which is being held back by the government should be placed in a trust account, and out of it should be evolved a system of crop insurance to the end that there will be available to the farmers of this country legislation for which they have asked for so many years.
Finally, the prices in 1948, 1949 and 1950 of SI .25 and SI a bushel will, if past experience recurs, become the price at which wheat will be sold at that time, even though but for this agreement the price determined by the world price would have been higher. As was pointed out by the leader of the C.C.F. party and my hon. leader, the prices of $1 and 81.25 three or four years hence are just guesswork, with no regard to prices being on the rise for the things the farmer has to buy and no regard for parity prices in a period of two or three years.
The minister may ask, how are we going to look ahead that far? I understand that in the Department of Reconstruction and Supply, and in his own department too, quite a collection of experts have been working for some time, more or less drafting the future and indicating what may be expected by

industry, agriculture and the like, so that they will be able to anticipate for a considerable period in advance what prices will be for commodities and what supply of commodities will be available.
Those in the main are my criticisms of this agreement. I am bound to say that our criti- cism at this time is almost meaningless and futile, because we are handed a completed fact, an agreement that was not the result of cooperation between the government of Canada and the great wheat producers of this country or t'heir representatives, but an agreement that was entered into at the request of the Canadian government and not at the solicitation of the British government. Only the other day I read that Mr. Strachey, I think it was, said that the agreement was not consummated as a result of the request of the British government but that the Canadian government gave the lead.
Let me say this in conclusion with regard to bilateral agreements. The Canadian federation of agriculture has opposed this type of agreement. Bilateral agreements cannot but lead to the arousing of antagonisms amongst other nations. It is in direct conflict not only with the Atlantic charter but with the whole framework of the united nations organization. The Canadian government and the minister, himself a tribune of this house for multilateral agreements, have become the first to return to economic nationalism and to the type of agreements such as this, which culminated in the last war.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Memories of 1932.


John George Diefenbaker: Memories of 1932, if- they be memories. But they have been forgotten by the government in this legislation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They have been forgotten by the opposition.


John George Diefenbaker: If the experience of the past has been that economic nationalism causes wars, and that it was the economic warfare of the nineteen-thirties that resulted in the breaking down of the entire system throughout the world, surely the government has had sufficient warnings of what will take place if principles such as this again become the means whereby nations endeavour to make themselves economically independent. My hon. friend says 1932. Yes, times change.


Mr. GRANT:: I guess so.


John George Diefenbaker: I cannot hear these interruptions from Prince Edward Island. We have had another war since 1932, and we are not the only ones who are warning the govern-

Supply-Trade and Commerce
ment at this time, because a great paper such as the Winnipeg Free Press which nearly always gives the closest allegiance to this government, has pointed out the difficulties in an editorial in the August 13 issue. The editorial ends with these words:
But abandoning the struggle-
That is the struggle of multilateral agreements among the nations of the world:
But abandoning the struggle because it is difficult is a confession of failure and a counsel of despair. For there is no lasting solution elsewhere. Bilateralism, in wheat as in everything else, is a mirage.
That is the view of the Canadian federation of agriculture and of other agricultural organizations.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is what we said against the Tory party in 1932.


Mr. GRAYDON:: That is before you joined the communists.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, sir.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to refer to the new alliance but I really cannot bring that in in this debate.


Walter Adam Tucker: Why stop at that? You have brought in everything else.


John George Diefenbaker: That is another bilateral deal between the ministers and my hon. friends in 1945.


Walter Adam Tucker: You objected when we started putting them in gaol.


John George Diefenbaker: But that is not the kind of bilateralism, we are dealing with at the present time.


Walter Adam Tucker: Why did you defend them so much when we had to put them in gaol?


William Ross Macdonald: Order. .


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: "Consistency, thou art a jewel."


John George Diefenbaker: I always find that my speeches are interlarded with interruptions, made so low that I cannot hear them and therefore cannot answer them. But at the moment I am dealing with this agreement. I suggest that this agreement is unfair internationally to other nations; it has in it the germ of difference and antagonism as between nations. It is unfair as well to the farmers of this country, who are being asked to provide subsidies at their own expense instead of at the expense of the people as a whole.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am net following the course set by the hon. member who has just taken
his seat. I shall try to talk on the wheat agreement, which I think is the subject before us this afternoon.
The hon. member for Lake Centre made the argument that we shall probably have difficulty in exporting our wheat in the future, and that one of the best ways to find a market for Canadian wheat available for export is to bring immigrants into Canada, and so have a market here. He went on to quote what the Minister of Agriculture said in Regina. According to that quotation, apparently the Minister of Agriculture advocated that we should have six million immigrants. But we need each year to export something like 280 million bushels of wheat:	twelve million
people in Canada to-day consume 60 million bushels; another six million would consume an additional 30 million bushels; and we could still have 250 million bushels of wheat that we would have to find a market for. If we want to bring to Canada sufficient people to eat all the wheat we can grow here we would need to have at least another fifty-six million immigrants, and I do not believe that even the hon. member for Lake Centre would advocate immigration to the extent of an additional fifty-six million persons.
The hon. member went on to say that this was a bilateral agreement and as such was an impediment to multilateral agreements being eonsumated in the future. I should like to read part of clause 7 of the agreement, which states:
Having in mind the general purposes which this agreement is designed to serve, the two governments have agreed that its terms and conditions shall be subject to any modification or amendment which may be necessary to bring it into conformity with any international agreements . . .
No one in this house has questioned the integrity of the British government or the Canadian government in making this agreement, and the agreement states that it will be moulded in the future to any multilateral agreements which may be made.
I agree with the leader of this group (Mr. Coldwell) who stated that we in this party welcome the agreement. In my opinion if it is the best possible agreement the government could make under the circumstances, then it is all that any reasonable person can expect. The guaranteed price for wheat in the last year of this agreement is $1 per bushel. I am not going to try to prophesy whether wheat is likely to fall to that amount, but everyone in this house knows that a dollar a bushel is not sufficient for the Canadian farmer, and if in the future we are going to base the Canadian domestic price wholly or mainly on the price we
Supply-Trade and Commerce

receive for wheat on the markets of the world, I am certain that we shall soon get back to a dollar a bushel. If we are to find and maintain markets for Canadian exports of wheat we must be willing and able at all times to receive sufficient products to give the nations that are buying our wheat enough Canadian currency to pay for it. International agreements for food commodities, even if they cover the available supplies of all commodities for export, are doomed to failure if the exporting countries are not prepared to take .imports from the countries which are buying those exports. So, if we are to have international trade as a two-way stream, it is not only necessary that agreements be made as the agreement with Britain has been made, but the government must follow a policy of increasing continuously the well-being of the Canadian people so that we shall always have a standard of living sufficiently high to be able to purchase the imports which other nations wish to send us in exchange for our wheat.
In 1943 the initial price for wheat was set at $1.25 per bushel. Since that time partcipa-tion payments are being made to the extent of twelve cents a bushel, making the price for the 1943 crop $1.37 per bushel. For the 1945 crop farmers received an initial payment of $1.25; they are to be given another ten cents. The price for wheat sold in 1945, apart from any payment which may be made at the end of the 1949 crop year, will be $1.35 per bushel. The price which the farmer is guaranteed for 1945 is two cents a bushel less than the price he received for 1943. The cost of producing wheat in the year 1945 as compared with 1943 had certainly gone up. The Minister of Agriculture told us this morning that this spring, before the increases in costs took place, a parity price was $1.41 or $1.42 a bushel. Since that time the cost of living to the farmer, the costs of things he has to buy which go into his production, have been increasing tremendously. The cost of living index from March to July jumped five points. Gasoline within that time went up two cents a gallon, machinery went up 12i per cent, a host of other commodities have risen in price, and prices continue to rise. According to the financial experts of the government, who should know, we are still in a period of inflation, and there is going to be more inflation.
I say therefore that if the farmer is to be guaranteed stable real income his prices must be adjusted from time to time as the costs of production change. It would seem to me that $1.55 is a reasonable and fair price at

this time. I would say, too, that price should
be adjusted as costs to farmers change from, time to time.


Mr. FLEMING:: Does the hon. member mean that if costs of production to the farmer decrease he would advocate a reduction in the present price under the agreement to the farmer for these two years?


Hazen Robert Argue: What the Canadian farmer wants is a high level of national income; he wishes, out of that high level of income, his fair share, and if his costs go down to the extent that if he received a previous price he would be getting more than his fair share of the national income, the farmer would agree, and I would agree, that his prices might be adjusted downward as the costs to him decreased.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That does not answer the question.


Hazen Robert Argue: That answers the question, I believe. I want to take a few figures based on what I consider reasonable assumptions. The figure $1.55, in my area, would bring a price of something like $1.35 to the farmer. The average size of farm in my district is 325 cultivated acres; the number of acres of field crops is 204 on the average. The average yield is eleven bushels of wheat, which would give the farmer each year on the average 2,244 bushels. If one takes 244 bushels as a reasonable amount of seed for seeding 204 acres the farmer has 2,000 bushels of wheat to sell. If he gets $1.35 at the elevator he has $2,700 to provide for all the expenses of farming, which include machinery, gasoline, interest and taxes and depreciation, and also the cost of maintaining his family. I say that $2,700 as a gross income is not too high.


Mr. TUSTIN:: Do you think that is high enough for 325 acres?


Hazen Robert Argue: I am not saying that is necessarily high enough, but surely it is the lowest average that should be tolerated. During this session, in another part of the building, I have heard it said that a worker needs $1,750 a year as a basic minimum. I have not yet heard anyone say that is too high. I say then that if $1,750 is a reasonable basic minimum for workers, below which none should be allowed to go, $2,700 gross income is certainly a very reasonable average income and one which farmers should have as of right, because that figure means, the way averages work out, that most farmers will get even less. That is, the average farmer would get, if the price of wheat were at this time $1.55 a bushel, the gross income I have indicated.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
Our national income was running at eleven billions or eleven and three-quarter billions at the peak of wartime production, which on the basis of the 1941 census gave an average income per capita in Canada of about $1,000. The cash income of farmers in 1945-and there were 3-15 million persons engaged in agriculture- the total cash income, I say, was $1,685 million or a per capita cash income for people living on farms cf $530. The average income in Canada is $1,000. The average cash income for farming is $530, and out of that $530 the farmers of Canada have to pay all expenses of producing the products they sell. The net income in 1945 of 3-15 million people engaged in agriculture in Canada was just a little over one billion dollars. The average per capita net income was $330 for people engaged in agriculture. Surely any reasonable person, and in this I include most members sitting opposite, will agree that $330 per capita net income for farmers is too low with an average national income, I repeat, of $1,000.
I welcome the wheat agreement. I think it provides a start for the making of international agreements when there is in the agreement a clause which provides that the agreement will be made to conform to international agreements. In view of the costs to farmers, which have increased this year, I, along with the united farmers' organization, Saskatchewan branch, say that $1.55 is the lowest price that should prevail at this time. Further, I say that if costs increase next year, as it appears they will, then next year that price should be adjusted upwards to take care of the increased costs.


Walter Adam Tucker: I do not intend to detain the house more than a few minutes, but I think I should say a word in regard to the wheat agreement. I too have been in the west and I was surprised at the apparent unanimity of approval of this agreement among the people to whom I spoke.
There is one thing I should like to say at the very outset, however, before I discuss the agreement itself. I am repeating what I have said on more than one occasion and also the representations I have made to the government from time to time. I think that consideration should be given to raising the price at which the wheat board sells wheat to the domestic millers for domestic consumption from $1.25 to $1.55. I feel I cannot urge the government too strongly to give consideration to that change being made at the very earliest possible date.
I wish also to say a word in regard to the argument that there is inflation at the present time, that there will be more inflation, and therefore there is no use in trying to introduce
any element of stability into the situation. That argument carries my mind back to the period after the first great war when there was a time of uncertainty and inflation very much the same as has followed this second great war, the period in which we find ourselves today. At that time prices were rising and the same argument was heard-that wheat prices should be permitted to go almost sky high, and that it was in the interests of the farmers that they should do so. Then we went through that period. Those of us who were interested in farming in western Canada at that time came to believe, and I am sure the committee will agree with me, that the fact that prices to the farmer were permitted to go sky high and out of control actually injured the farmer in the long run more than it helped. It caused the prices of the things he had to buy, land and everything else, also to rise. He went into debt on that basis; then when prices dropped he was left in an almost bankrupt position, because he had been misled by what had happened during the period when prices went out of control. I think if we are not careful we may be in for a somewhat similar period soon, though I hope and think it will not be as bad; but after that movement takes place, if it does, there will be another reversal.
It seems to me what the farmer wants is not that sort of thing, but a certain measure of stability. That is wanted not only by the farmers but by the whole world. My mind goes back to the nineteen thirties, when the prices of primary products the world over, wheat, wool, meat and so on, went down to ruinous levels. Some people thought that would help the consuming countries of Europe, but that was not their experience. The very fact that their customers were getting ruinous prices for the goods they had to sell meant that their markets for manufactured goods were destroyed. For example, I am sure one of the things which greatly contributed to the rise to power of Hitler was the fact that Germany's markets abroad were destroyed, unemployment was created on a large scale, and those unemployed men found themselves in the nazi party.
I had the privilege of attending the international monetary conference at Bretton Woods in 1944, where I had a chance of talking to the representatives of Great Britain, for example, in regard to their attitude toward cheap wheat, cheap wool, cheap meat and so on. Their attitude was that they did not want that situation to occur again; that when the primary producing countries of South America, Australia, New Zealand and North America could) not get reasonable prices for their products it had a ruinous
Supply-Trade and Commerce

effect upon the export manufacturing industries of Great Britain itself. So there was general agreement that what the world needed was international agreement to provide some stability of price levels; and in this wheat agreement we are just recognizing that feeling and trying to fit ourselves into that general world picture.
I should like to read to the committee from article VII of the resolutions of the international monetary conference in regard to that matter, because I think we cannot give too much attention to this trend) in world affairs looking to security and stability for the workers and farmers of the world. Here is what it says:
Whereas, in article I of the articles of agreement of the international monetary fund it is stated that one of the principal purposes of the fund is to facilitate the expansion and balanced growth of international trade, and to contribute thereby to the promotion and maintenance of high levels of employment and real income and to the developmennt of the productive resources of all members as primary objectives of economic policy;
Whereas, it is recognized that the complete attainment of this and other purposes and objectives stated in the agreement cannot be achieved through the instrumentality of the fund alone; therefore
The united nations monetary and financial conference recommends:
To the participating governments that, in addition to implementing the specific monetary and financial measures which were the subject of this conference, they seek, with a view to creating in the field of international economic relations conditions necessary for the attainment of the purposes of the fund and of the broader primary objectives of economic policy, to reach agreement as soon as possible on ways and means whereby they may best:
(1)	reduce obstacles to international trade and in other ways promote mutually advantageous international commercial relations;
(2)	bring about the orderly marketing of staple commodities at prices fair to the producer and consumer alike;
I emphasize that:
. . . bring about the orderly marketing of staple commodities at prices fair to the producer and consumer alike.
The remaining two paragraphs have no relevance to the matter I am discussing, so I shall not read them. I admit that when I see a great Liberal newspaper like the Winnipeg Free Press finding some difficulty in approving this agreement, knowing its devoted attitude toward true Liberal principles I find myself somewhat concerned, and I would cite this agreement of the nations of the world, meeting in international conference, to that newspaper for consideration.
I submit the decision of that conference was that one of the primary purposes of the nations of the world should be agreement to bring about the orderly marketing of staple 
commodities such as wheat, beef, mutton, cotton, wool and other commodities at prices fair to the producer and consumer alike. In other words, Mr. Chairman, there is a spirit abroad in the world to-day, a feeling of live and let live; that if you want to prosper you must let your neighbour prosper; that if the manufacturer is to prosper he must let the farmer prosper as well, in order that the farmer in turn may provide a market for his manufactured products. If Britain is to prosper in her exports of manufactured goods, she must let New Zealand, the countries of South America, Canada and the other primary producing countries prosper in order that they in turn, with a high standard of living, may make use of her manufactured products; and that applies equally to the other manufacturing nations of the world.
I submit that is the basic idea behind this agreement. It is not a bilateral agreement in the old accepted meaning of the term. A bilateral agreement used to mean that if you took from one nation $100,000,000 worth of goods, that nation in turn would take from you $100,000,000 worth of specified goods. That tended to channel the trade of the world between two countries. There is nothing like that about this agreement. This is simply an out-and-out agreement on the part of Great Britain to take so much wheat each year for a period of four years, that there shall be a price of $1.55 for the first two years of the agreement and that for the following two years there shall be a minimum price, but that the actual price shall be negotiated having in mind the relationship which $1.55 had to actual world prices at the time it was being paid. If the English ' language means anything, that means that : if the world price during the first two years of this agreement is higher than $1.55, the British, who are people of their word, will agree to give us a fair price above the world : level during the last two years of the agree- j. ment. Was that not the basic idea behind the establishment of the great wheat pools of western Canada? At that time the idea was that the pools would take the wheat and get the best average price for the year, and then distribute that price to the farmers. In other words the feeling was that in the fall, when the farmer marketed a great deal of his grain, there was a tendency for the price to fall and that after he had sold his grain there was a tendency for the price to rise.
So it was felt that if one organization took the grain, then the farmer could get the average of the prices throughout the year, and he would not have to worry about trying to sell his grain at the highest price.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
This, Mr. Chairman, is just an extension of that idea. This is an attempt to bring about stability, not for just one year at a time but for five years at a time. It was argued this morning, and perhaps well argued, that we might get a higher price for wheat this year and that therefore we should try to get that higher price and not worry about the future, because after all what is the use of worrying about the future since you cannot be sure about it? Well, that is a policy of negation and defeatism. It is a belief that we cannot do better in the future than we have done in the past. This agreement is a venture of faith that, by international agreement, we can do better in the future than we did in the past; that we can introduce an element of stability in regard to the position of primary producers throughout the world, including our own. It introduces the idea that if we can make the primary producers prosperous, then the working people also will be prosperous. Surely all the experiences and hopes of the past are not now to be laughed away and frustrated by saying we must go back to the old ideas of the past, based on the belief that we cannot do any better.
As I said, this agreement is a venture of faith that we can go forward to greater stability, greater fairness to the primary producer. And it is not an exclusive agreement. If there should be any possibility of an international agreement, the very last clause of this document makes provision for the modification of this agreement in accordance therewith. All it means is that we have established one more foundation-stone of stability for the next four or five years-in regard to wheat.
Upon that example, Mr. Chairman, let me express the hope that other primary producing countries will make similar deals with other consuming countries which will provide reasonable prices and reasonable stability in respect of primary products; that upon this basis we may establish stability and a high standard of living for primary producers the world over so that in turn we may also establish a high standard of living for the workers throughout the wTorld. On this basis also we may put to work our tremendous producing power and raise the standard of living of the people throughout the world, and thus do away with the hatreds, the jealousies, the attempts of one country to profit unduly at the expense of another, which helped bring about the last war. This agreement, I think, is just one step along the path mankind must follow toward
the goal of living and letting live, agreeing together and trying to help one another, and for that reason I support it.


Mr. CHURCH:: I should like to say a few words in connection with this matter, because for many years in this house I have advocated a proper system of protection for the grain growing industry of this country. Everyone wants to see the farmers on the prairies get a proper price for their wheat. I should like to refer briefly to what I said on this subject in the past. To-day we are facing a very acut6 situation with regard to this industry. Years ago my friends of the Liberal Progressives, as they were then, now the Liberal party, believed that this was an all-American industry, or a north and south industry, and not Canada's greatest imperial industry. Let me refer to what I said in this house on May 5, 1924. That is a long time ago, but at that time the farmers of the west had given their support to a party that believed in free trade as far as this industry was concerned, whereas in fact it is the most imperialist industry we have in Canada in dealing with our best customer. As I have said, I want to see them get the best price they can, but do not forget that in 1938 I proposed that a system of underground grain storage reservoirs should be built in Britain, so that when I saw the war sure to come we would have most of our exportable surplus over there. I also wanted to get for our farmers the highest price given for our hard wheat and prevent its being bootlegged with America's course grain, and as a result our gro'wers would get the highest price in the world.
What happened? The hon. gentleman who preceded me came into the house a few years ago. He was a great advocate of free trade on the prairies. If the. people of Saskatchewan want to do something now for the grain industry, let them give fifty per cent free of the 200,000 bushels of wheat Britain must have to-day as an appreciation of Britain as our best customer. Let them give it to Britain, so that bread rationing there will not be necessary. The Minister of Agriculture is about to go over to the old country, and when he goes there I hope he will forget all about this business of free trade, which never did anything for the man who grows the crops on the prairies, the dirt farmer as he was called by the Drury government in the old days. This is what I said back in 1924:
The best friend of the western wheat grower is the policy of protection, as that policy has been and should be extended and administered by the founders and soldiers of the national policy, the Conservative party of Canada. The
Supply-Trade and Commerce

western wheat grower has eaten the sour grapes of free trade. No wonder the western wheat growers' teeth are set on edge. The weste'rn wheat grower has taught himself to believe, or has allowed so-called leaders to persuade him, that wheat growing in western Canada is a continental industry, an industry that must prosper by reason of the admission of the product to the United States market or perish because of its exclusion. I submit that wheat growing in -western Canada is the most truly national, the most widely imperial of all Canada's great industries. The markets of the British Empire mean more and the markets of the American section of the North American continent mean less to the wheat growers of Canada than to any other class of Canadian producers. ...
Progressive Liberals or Liberal Progressives profess that they are the best friends of the western wheat grower. They insist that their quack medicine of free trade is a sure cure-all for all the ailments of the western provinces.
I went on to say:
Ontario has not yet recovered from four years of free trade preaching and blue ruin prophecy. . . . Ontario sent the Ontario end of the Progressive party about its business. Ontario has learned that a few months will not suffice to bring back the business opportunities that were driven away. . . .
Then I continued, May 5, 1924:
I wish now to deal with the wheat growing industry showing that its future depends on adequate protection, that it is not a continental but the most imperial of all our industries, and that protection is the best friend of the wheat grower, and the day will come when he will see it . . .
I believe in free trade only to the extent, I repeat, that if I had sat in the last parliament I would have tried to prove myself a free trader, -when the hon. member from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) without protest or let or hindrance from the Progressives and the other sort of Liberals, proved himself a protectionist . . .
But the Union government honestly tried to protect the western wheat producer against the big interests. The western wheat producers have fulfilled in their experience with the hon. member for Marquette and his followers in this house the words of scripture. "A man's foes shall be they of his household." _ The worst enemy of the western wheat growers is the policy of the Progressive party, its leaders and its representatives in this house.
Later I went on to say:
I plead for a departure from this free trade law of supply and demand and acceptance of the principles of the old national policy in our dealings with all provinces from Yukon to Prince Edward Island.
That national policy would benefit farmers and industrial workers alike. The industrial workers are the forgotten men by this house in 1946, and an industrial relations committee has been meeting here for weeks to give them the protection to-day for which I pleaded in those days. I went on to say:
I plead for a departure from the free trade law of supply and demand and an application of the principles_ of the old national policy to other industries in this country from the manu-

facturing of agricultural implements up to wheat growing. Leave the wheat growing industry of the west to the workings of the law of supply and demand and that law would not fill the west with wheat growers. If that law did fill the west with wheat growers, wheat would not be worth 50 cents a bushel.
And not long after that it went down to 38 cents a bushel.
The free trade law of supply and demand now costs the wheat grower of the west $25,000,000 per annum. I am advised, and believe, that free trade conditions supported by those free trade organizations, the grain exchanges, keep $25,000,000 per annum out of the pockets of Canadians who raise high quality wheat, and put that $25,000,000 per annum into the pockets of the native and alien exploiters who handle high grade Canadian wheat. The Progressive and non-Progressive sections of the Liberal party support grain exchanges and oppose grain inquiries. That party or those parties would sooner talk about agricultural implements than to try to protect the wheat growers pf the west by a departure from free trade conditions. The only cure for these free trade conditions is a return to the ideals of the national policy, the application of the principles of protection. Free trade conditions have failed to maintain the identity of Canada's high grade wheat from the point of production to the ultimate market for that wheat.
At that time the Prime Minister rose in this house and announced the appointment of a royal commission headed by Chief Justice Turgeon. I need not read the report of that commission; it speaks for itself, but it will be found that all the statements I made at that time with regard to the bootlegging of course grains on the Atlantic seaboard in America were founded upon fact.
That great imperial newspaper the Toronto Telegram spent a lot of money in telling the people of the prairie provinces and the people of Ontario that this was really a national industry, that instead of being a north and south industry it was an east and west industry over to Great Britain and our allies and the markets of the world. What has been the result? From the time that commission was appointed they have set up eight or nine or ten different forms of protection during the past eight years or more, and the chickens are coming home to roost.
In conclusion I want to say that I hope that this matter has not been forgotten. Four or five days have been devoted to this but not one day has been devoted to the protection of the industrial worker. The only government that did anything for the white-collared people and the industrial workers was the Bennett government which set up the price spreads inquiry in 1933, 1934 and 1935. We are here to-day to fix the price of wheat and grant all kinds of protection to it in prices, although the actual price is set by world conditions.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
Efforts should be made to hold our best customer, Great Britain. When the government saw the war coming in 1936, 1937 and 1938 they should have taken some action and little has been done since then. Hon. members will recall the time when a man with 400 acres was given an acreage bonus not to sow 200 acres. There were all forms of protection. I had a list of them in a return but I shall not read it.
The people of the prairies were responsible for the condition of the grain growing industry in the past; they are responsible for its condition. at the present time, and they will be responsible for its future condition if they do not hold on to their best customer along the lines I have indicated, the mother country. We have had a great number of grain inquiries. Instead of taking up four or five days of the time of the house toward the end of the session, I think this was really a function earlier in the session for the agriculture committee. That is a splendid committee. We have many able men in the house from farming communities. I plead with hon. members to do something to restore public confidence in our best customers in the old land, Great Britain, France and our allies in the last two wars. This can be done by adopting reasonable protection for this great industry.


Robert Fair: WThen speaking on this matter yesterday afternoon I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether any commission was paid to brokers or commission merchants, and this morning he made a reply which to me was not very satisfactory. The minister stated that some commission was paid by the purchaser but that it did not affect the farmer directly or indirectly. In my opinion that is not quite correct because I think you will find the purchasers will reduce the price they pay by the amount of commission paid to the brokers.
At the present time 160 million bushels of our wheat are being sold to the British government for the next two years, and 140 million bushels for the succeeding two years. There is no excuse in the world for keeping the commission merchants in Winnipeg or anywhere else on the dole by paying commissions on these deals. This is a deal between departments of governments or 'boards set up by governments in two different countries. I can see no reason for subsidizing these fellows as has been done in the past at the expense of the grain growers.


James Angus MacKinnon: That is not being done.


Robert Fair: No commission whatever is
being paid to them-63260-305


James Angus MacKinnon: Not by the wheat board or by the government in any way. The purchaser does pay the exporter a commission.


Robert Fair: Does he pay anything to the Winnipeg men?


James Angus MacKinnon: Oh, yes, the men he employs in Winnipeg.


Robert Fair: I do not think the farmers of this country should be penalized any longer. As hon. members know, on previous occasions I have introduced bills to close the grain exchange altogether. The bill that I introduced this session was sent to the agriculture committee, but because a number of other committees were sitting it was not possible to have the bill dealt with this year. I gave notice that if the bill was not dealt with this year I would introduce it next session, and that is still my intention.
I am not particularly concerned with the percentage of commission that is paid on these deals, but I am concerned' over the grain exchange being allowed to operate. The way prices have fluctuated in the past has meant that the farmers were robbed, and I feel satisfied that the same thing will happen in the future. As an illustration I should like to refer to what has happened in connection with rye. On July 30 the price of cash rye in Winnipeg was $3.04 per bushel, but by August 10 the price hadi dropped down to $1,894 cents per bushel.


William Scottie Bryce: That is just when the farmer is selling his grain.


Robert Fair: As the hon. member for Selkirk says, that is when the farmer is selling his grain, That is a drop of approximately 38 per cent. The farmer is robbed of that difference in price, but of course the fellows on the grain exchange make their commissions regardless of the price at which it is soldi. I think it is a crime; it is just a steal from the farmers. If there are any representatives in the house of the grain exchange or the northwest millers association I should like them to convey that message to those organizations. Until this legalized steal is stopped I intend to continue to introduce bills to close the grain exchange in order to make these members get out and go to work.


Percy Ellis Wright: I should like to ask the minister a question along the lines of that asked by the hon. member who has just spoken. We have a crop in prospect this year of anywhere from 450 to 500 million bushels of wheat. We are providing for a sale of 160 million bushels to Great Britain. If we allow 90 million bushels for home consumption, for



Supply-Trade and Commerce
feed, seed and flour, that leaves us with probably 200. million bushels still to be sold to other countries. What is the intention of the government with regard to these sales to other countries? Are they to be made direct to individuals in those countries, or to government agencies, or are the facilities of the Winnipeg grain exchange or any other grain exchange to be used? What is the method that is to be used in disposing of the grain that is not covered by this contract?


James Angus MacKinnon: No grain exchange in Winnipeg or anywhere else is going to be used as far as the Canadian government or the wheat board is concerned. I am told that certain buyers in foreign countries are in the habit of buying through shippers or brokers and I do not know to what extent they will continue to do that.


Percy Ellis Wright: Is that for the duration of the contract, or just for this year?


James Angus MacKinnon: As far as I know it is for the duration of the contract. I can answer the hon. member's question by stating that it is the intention to carry on indefinitely in the way I have just stated.


Mr. BENTLEY:: I understood from the
minister that any exporting firm in this or any other country which makes a deal outside of this contract must place the order with a broker here who will buy direct from the wheat board. Is that correct?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes.


Mr. QUELCH:: This morning the Minister of Agriculture stated that the 12^ per cent in the price of agricultural machinery would be offset through the Canadian dollar being now on a parity with the United States dollar. We all agreed that that should be so, but that is not what is happening, because the last word I had from the west shows that an $1,800 binder is now quoted at over $2,000. Is the government going to take, steps to see that the prices of farm machinery are controlled? It seems to me that since the government allowed that increase of 12J per cent and brought the Canadian dollar on a parity with the United States dollar, the government would be justified in reducing the farm machinery increase from 12J per cent to 2\ per cent.


James Angus MacKinnon: That is a matter of government policy.


Victor Quelch: But farm machinery is being bought in such large quantities prior to the harvest that the question is important

now; for our farmers are paying these increased prices. If the government is going to act it will have to act quickly.


Robert Fair: In regard to quota deliveries during the second, third and fourth years of this contract, will the quota be applied only during a certain portion of the year until the heavy run of wheat comes, or throughout the whole year?


James Angus MacKinnon: It will be the policy of the wheat board to open up the quotas just as soon as it can.


Robert Fair: The farmers will be able to deliver all the wheat they can grow during the life of this contract to July 31, 1950?


James Angus MacKinnon: That is my understanding.


George Hugh Castleden: What will be the acreage basis under this agreement?


James Angus MacKinnon: The present authorized acreage is approximately 22,000,000. The original basis was 65 per cent of the 1940 acreage, but since then adjustments have been made and at the present time the authorized acreage is approximately 22,000,000. We are operating on that basis.


George Hugh Castleden: Will new acreage be permitted to come under cultivation? Thousands of veterans are returning to agriculture and getting themselves established on new land. There will have to be some adjustment made to take care of them, and I want that clearly understood.


James Angus MacKinnon: The wheat board have been doing that right along.


George Hugh Castleden: With regard to the five-year participation period, one of the great objections is that the farmer will not be able to realize on his participation certificates beyond 10 cents now and 14 to 16 cents on the 1944 crop until July 31, 1950.


James Angus MacKinnon: That is correct. After payments have been made on the 1943 crop, the 1944 crop and 10 cents on the 1945 crop, and that will take some time, the next participation payments will not be made until the profits of the five-year pool are ascertained.


George Hugh Castleden: That will probably be in 1951.


James Angus MacKinnon: I should think so.


George Hugh Castleden: At the very earliest. Is there no way in which the government can make a participation payment at the end of the third year instead of the farmer having to wait five years? That is just a bit too long.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
A good many farmers have their money in participation certificates, and with rising costs they are going to be in a difficult position. Some will be compelled to go to the banks and borrow money, because even though they have participation certificates the banks do not take them as collateral. I would strongly urge that a partial payment be made at the end of three years instead of five years. That would greatly relieve the position of the grain growers.


James Angus MacKinnon: I do not see how that could be done, but it is a matter that might well be taken into consideration.


James Arthur Ross: I raised that point this morning. I am not able to understand why the twenty cents which would apply on the next two years' crops should not be paid following the end of those two years. The answer given was it was being held to average up the price for the five-year period. Is there any other object which the wheat board has in mind in holding up payment of the participation certificates for five years?


James Angus MacKinnon: The plan provides for a five-year pool, and the participation payments covering the five-year pool will be made on the basis of the profits made by the board in the next five years.


James Arthur Ross: I asked another question this morning as to the subsidy on flour for domestic use in Canada. The government has been paying a subsidy of 47 f cents a bushel. I do not suppose that subsidy will be paid on flour exported?


James Angus MacKinnon: No.


James Arthur Ross: How do you adjust the matter between the two lots of flour?


James Angus MacKinnon: The mills make a report to the wheat board every month. Those reports are audited, so there will be no difficulty about that at all.


James Arthur Ross: One question that bothers me more than anything else is that all manufactured goods are exported on a rising market. Is there anything in mind to bring about parity between farm prices and the prices of the goods the farmer needs in order to produce and for his living?


James Angus MacKinnon: No.


Percy Ellis Wright: I think we are all agreed that we want stability and that this agreement is a step in that direction. But there is one flaw in it, and I am wondering if this point was discussed with the British representatives when the negotiations were taking place. There is no relationship between the price of 63260-305.1
our wheat being sold to Britain and the prices of the goods which Britain has to sell to us. We are buying certain of these articles and it seems to me there should be some relationship between the price of wheat we are selling to Britain and the prices of the goods she is selling to us. I know that in negotiating agreements with other parts of the commonwealth that factor was taken into consideration. Was it discussed in the negotiations with the British people in connection with this agreement?


James Angus MacKinnon: There was no discussion of that, and I really do not see how there could be any hope of arriving at agreement on it.


Percy Ellis Wright: In the agreement which Britain reached with New Zealand the matter was discussed and adjustments were made in the agreement to cover that point. I know it is much easier to do that in the case of New Zealand because she buys a lot of goods direct from Britain which we do not. But if this wheat agreement is to be fair to the farmers there must be some relationship between their costs and the prices of what they have to buy. I know it is very difficult for a government which does not believe in planning except from day to day to do that. Nevertheless I am still of the opinion that that is the only permanent solution of our problem, and I was wondering if the government had been farsighted enough to discuss that aspect of the matter with Britain when negotiating this agreement.


Robert Fair: I have given figures showing that the price of rye dropped from $3.04 to SI.SO1^ from July 30 to August 10 last. In view of this very recent evidence, what action is the government taking to close the exchange as far as the sale of rye is concerned?


James Angus MacKinnon: Very recently in the house I made a statement on rye operations in connection with the exchange, and what is set out there is, I think, a complete outline.


George Hugh Castleden: Was not an order in council passed permitting a drop of ten cents a day?


James Angus MacKinnon: No.


George Hugh Castleden: Well then, regulations-?


James Angus MacKinnon: Nothing whatsover
having to do with the wheat board.


George Hugh Castleden: In view of the fact that so many things have been said here with regard to this agreement, could we have the unanimous consent of the committee that a
Supply-Trade and Commerce

copy of this agreement be placed in the record? It would save some trouble in reading it-


James Angus MacKinnon: I should be very glad to have it specially printed and circulated to each member of the House of Commons and the other house.


George Hugh Castleden: A good many people in reading Hansard will wonder what the actual agreement is, and I believe that if a copy were placed on Hansard it would be a great deal of benefit throughout the country in helping people to understand what the agreement is.


James Angus MacKinnon: It is contained in about two or three pages.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Put it in Votes and Proceedings.


George Hugh Castleden: Those outside this house who read Hansard do not read Votes and Proceedings.


James Arthur Ross: There is no reason why, with unanimous consent, it cannot be put on Hansard, for the information of anyone in Canada who is interested.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The only point is that the government printing office is very much overworked, and it might delay the publication of Hansard to-morrow.


William Henry Golding: Is it the unanimous consent of the committee that the report be included in Hansard?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.
(The agreement follows):
The government of Canada and the government of the United Kingdom, recognizing that their mutual interest in the maintenance of reasonable prices and adequate supplies of wheat for consumers and of steady and remunerative prices for producers can best be met by international cooperation in the expansion of world trade and employment, have entered into the following arrangements designed to ensure a measure of security in the supply and of stability in the price of wheat supplied by Canada to the United Kingdom:
1.	(a) The United Kingdom government undertakes to purchase and the Canadian government undertakes to sell the following quantities of Canadian wheat, which quantities include wheat to be processed into flour for sale to the United Kingdom government:
(i)	within the crop year 1946-47, 160.000,000 bushels;
(ii)	within the crop year 1947-48, 160,000,000 bushels;
(iii)	within the crop eyar 1948-49, 140,000,000 bushels;
(iv)	within the crop year 1949-50, 140,000,000 bushels;
A bushel shall be of the weight of 60 pounds avoirdupois.

(b)	In the event of the United Kingdom requiring from Canada any additional quantities of wheat that the Canadian government is prepared to make available, such additional quantities which the Canadian government offers and the United Kingdom government accepts shall in all respects be subject to the provisions of this agreement.
(c)	Of the total quantity of wheat specified above for each crop year, the United Kingdom government agrees to take the following quantity in long tons in the form of flour:
1946-	47-500,000 tons as a minimum, with an additional quantity not exceeding 140,000 tons to be determined by negotiations in the lighj of the out-turn of the crop.
1947-	48-400,000 tons as a minimum, with an additional quantity not exceeding 140,000 tons to be determined by negotiations in the light of the out-turn of the crop.
1948-	49-300,000 tons as a minimum, the actual tonnage to be negotiated by the 1st July, 1947.
1949-	50-300,000 tons as a minimum, the actual tonnage to be negotiated by the 1st July, 1948.
(d)	The rate and place of deliveries of wheat and flour shall be determined from time to time by mutual agreement.
2.	(a) The price per bushel to be paid by the United Kingdom government to the Canadian government on the basis number one Manitoba northern, in store Fort William/Port Arthur, Vancouver or Churchill, shall be as follows:
(i)	In respect of wheat bought and sold in the crop year 1946-47, $1.55.
(ii)	In respect of wheat bought and sold in the crop year 1947-48, $1.55.
(iii)	In respect of wheat bought and sold in the crop year 1948-49, not less than $1.25.
(iv)	In respect of wheat bought and sold in the crop year 1949-50, not less than $1.
(b)	The actual prices to be paid for wheat to be bought and sold within the crop year 1948-49 shall be negotiated and settled between the United Kingdom government and the Canadian government not later than the 31st December. 1947. and prices for wheat to be bought and sold within the crop year 1949-50 shall be negotiated and settled not later than the 31st December, 1948. In determining the prices for these two crop years, 1948-49 and 1949-50, the United Kingdom government will have regard to any difference between the prices paid under this agreement in the 1946-47 and 1947-48 crop years and the world prices for wheat in the 1946-47 and 1947-48 crop years.
(c)	The prices to be paid for grades other than number one Manitoba northern to be delivered under this agreement shall be determined yearly in consultation between the United Kingdom government and the Canadian government.
(d)	In addition to the prices detailed in Section (a) of this article, the United Kingdom government undertakes to pay such carrying and forwarding charges as may be mutually arranged.
(e)	Payment shall be made in full in Canadian funds at par Winnipeg by the United Kingdom payments office against presentation of completed statements of claim or otherwise as may be mutually agreed.
3.	It is agreed that the United Kingdom government may sell or dispose of the wheat and flour purchased under this agreement in

Supply-Trade and Commerce
whatsoever manner the United Kingdom government may deem expedient both in regard to destination and price.
4.	(a) The Canadian government will use its best endeavours to arrange that the qualities of wheat set out in article 1 (a) shall at all times be available and at the disposal of the United Kingdom government within the stipulated dates and in accordance with the rates and places of delivery determined under section (d) of article 1 of this agreement.
(b) The United Kingdom government will use its best endeavours to arrange for the provision of the required ocean tonnage within the stipulated dates and in accordance with the rates and places of delivery determined under section (d) of article 1 of this agreement.
5.	It is agreed that the detailed terms and conditions relating to such matters as carrying and forwarding charges, grades, routing of shipments and all other matters incidental to the fulfilment of this agreement shall be discussed and settled from time to time and incorporated in documents to form annexures to this agreement.
6.	It is mutually understood that matters arising from, or incidental to, the operation of this agreement may at the instance of either party become subjects of discussion between the parties to this agreement.
7.	Having in mind the general purposes which this agreement is designed to serve, the two governments have agreed that its terms and conditions shall be subject to any modification or amendment which may be necessary to bring it into conformity with any international agreements or arrangements hereafter entered into to which both governments are parties.
Done in duplicate, in Ottawa, on the twenty-fourth day of July, 1946.
For the Government of Canada:
Jas. A. MacKinnon.
For the Government of the United Kingdom: P. A. Clutterbuck.


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: I have no intention of venturing into the details of this agreement; I should be just a sheep in the midst of wolves and, probably, be torn from all sides. But I do want to make some observations-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, oh.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I assure the Minister of Veterans Affairs that they will be brief. They have to do with some remarks which were made this morning by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. The hon. member, in hailing this agreement, correctly described it as a great step forward to a controlled economy, and I heard no sign of any demur from the opposite side of the house, so that I am going to take it upon myself to say one or two things about it.
I have noticed that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar takes his cue from the Apostle Paul, in that he tries to be "all things to all men." It is not long ago since I had occasion to quote him in this house to the
following effect: "We are not opposed to private enterprise, but we demand that private enterprise should take the risks if it takes the rewards." I said I could agree with that. I can only assume that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar uttered' those remarks after having associated with some people engaged in private enterprise, whom he found to be, like himself, quite civilized, and therefore he had difficulty in regarding them as members of "the jungle"-to quote a phrase socialists sometimes use. But this morning, I assume after returning from the meeting of the other apostles in the west, he showed a feeling of enthusiasm about socialism, and it seemed1 to me that he went a very long way. It is true that he referred to laissez-faire, which I recognize is an extreme form of private enterprise, and a form of private enterprise which has to be curtailed in various ways. Nevertheless he got into a pretty full flood of socialist feeling, as I understood him, when he described this agreement as being the precursor of other agreements, and it seemed to me that before it was through he had floated us well out on the sea of socialism, which I do not think all of us wish to embark on.
It is true-and for this I give him credit- that when he spoke about a controlled economy he said there would be no regimentation. That is something which puzzles me very much. Apparently those who believe in these views think you can have a control which is not a control; it is going to be all very nice; nobody is going to tell anybody else what he must do; everything will be by persuasion.


Mr. COTE (Matapedia-Matane):: Does the hon. member for (Muskoka-Ontario believe in the kind of private enterprise which Mr. Gladstone Murray speaks of as responsible enterprise?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If I understand what Mr. Gladstone Murray has said, as quoted by the hon. member, certainly I mean that. I would go farther and say, while I am on the point, that there must be regulation, and in some cases more regulation than others. But I come back to this point of control and regimentation, because I think it is an important point.
People must try to be realistic about this. To me it is inevitable that regimentation, however pleasant you try to make it, will still be regimentation, and it will still involve a few people giving other people orders. I once read an essay on murder, in which it was apparently argued that even murder could be done in a pleasant way. The essayist remarked, "I once knew a bulldog which murdered another bulldog with pleasing circumstances of
Supply-Trade and Commerce

good taste." I am prepared to believe that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, who, though I disagree with him, I must say always seems to be very agreeable, might try to make control and even regimentation as palatable as possible, just as the pleasant bulldog did.
But why I really rose in my place was this. I think, regardless of our views and differences, all of us would* like to feel that we are realistic. Frankly, I think members of the C.C.F. are often not realistic, and especially they are in grave danger of constantly ignoring the fact that this country is one which lives or dies by export trade. That being so

and this is really my excuse for being on my feet at all 

I wish to draw attention to a short extract from the London Economist, dealing with the position of England and with the task facing the British government, the task especially of finding the export trade by which, as the Economist in effect points out, they either live or die. If their export trade is good they 'will live, and if it is not they will die, or at any rate suffer a grievous reduction of their standard of living.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about imports?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I always try to couple imports and exports.


Antoine-Philéas Côté: We are not in England; we are in Canada.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to invite your attention to this quotation, because it is right on the target. I do not think any intelligent man can listen to this without asking himself whether it is true or false, and if it is true, it has searching and far-reaching implications for us. The article, which appears in the issue of July 27, at page 82, begins:
This is a strange task-
The task is that of finding sufficient export trade to enable them to prosper.
This is a strange task for a socialist government to find itself embarking upon. For competition in the world market still has those ugly features that socialists strive to banish from the domestic scene. The foreign purchaser is rarely amenable to "control." The foreign competitor does not submit to "coordination." "Fixed prices" are a rare exception and "orderly marketing" still rarer. Subsidies, the last resort in the domestic field of a government that cannot otherwise make an industry's ends meet, are regarded in the foreign field as almost equivalent to a declaration of war. The foreign customer is obstinate about buying where he can buy cheapest. Price, in fact, is the very essence of exporting. Quality, of course, plays its part; but quality alone, without a competitive price, will be useless.
Wherever else the labour government may be able to escape from the operations of the law of supply and demand-that law of the jungle 
that socialist orators are so fond of denouncing -they will have to face it in export markets. However much they may succeed in the domestic market, in substituting the welfare of the producer for the service of the consumer as the test of economic efficiency, they cannot do so in exports. . .
They will not find it easy to be coordinators at home and competitors abroad. They will need to be very stern in letting not their right hand know what their left hand doeth. Their chosen right hand is Sir Stafford Cripps; but he has not been able to prevent a little left-handedness creeping into his activities, as when, by some sort of conditioned reflex,-
I do not know exactly what "conditional reflex" means.
-he nationalized the Liverpool cotton market. That sort of instinct will have to be sternly repressed if the government are to perform as well in the role of Doctor Jekyll as in that of Mr. Hyde. They have just about three years-
The reason for the reference to three years is that they reckon that will be the time when the American and) Canadian credits will run out.
They have just about three years to prove that their economic policy can meet the brutal test of economic efficiency-that is, whether or not it can produce better goods, at lower prices than other countries. If it can, the world will be at its feet. If it cannot, no amount of appeal to social justice, no "planning" or schemes of social security will save the country from a sharp reduction in its standard of living.
Whether hon. members agree with that statement or not, I believe everyone will agree that it is at least a clear statement of a certain view which I suggest is realism. I am sorry the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is not here at the moment. I suggest that these words apply to this country just as precisely as they do to Great Britain.
'Mr. COTE (Matapedia-Matane): I would fully agree with the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell) if he were sitting in the House of Commons in England. I should like to see him there some day. His great associate, Mr. Bennett, sits in the House of Lords. From the point of view of the British government, there is no doubt whatever that the article from which he has quoted and the argument which he is promoting are right. But unfortunately for the hon. member, we are not in Westminster. We are in the House of Commons of Canada, in Ottawa.


An hon. MEMBER:: What has that to do with it?


Antoine-Philéas Côté: Wait a minute. You will find out.


Mr. BROOKS:: Not from you.


Antoine-Philéas Côté: You will be surprised, and disappointed. I am not going to say that I am an expert on this ques-

Supply-Trade and Commerce
tion. Far from it. The hon. member for Miuskoka-Ontario knows me better than to suppose that I would pose an as expert, but I hope that I shall be understood by members of all parties when I make the statement I am about to make. When we have to discuss any matter here, why should we introduce into this house the views and the concepts of people with whom we are trading? Exports from England to this country are imports as far as Canada is concerned, and exports from the Canadian soil to England are imports to the English. It is not one and the same problem at all. I suggest that it is about time that we in this House of Commons tried to understand the problem as it really is.
We have given 81,250,000,000 to England, and we have done so after many other grants; and I voted upon it with the greatest satisfaction that I have ever had in my life. Why? I will tell you why. I felt like a man paying the last instalment on a promissory note to the bank, a payment from a debtor who was becoming a creditor. I contend, therefore, that we should deal with this problem now before us as we deal with all problems as between exporters and importers-Canada-United Kingdom-on the basis that we are a nation and that we must analyse the situation instead of taking advice either from Westminster or from hon. members on the other side for whom I have every respect.


Victor Quelch: Has there been any recent change in the wheat board's policy in granting permits to a number of brothers farming together, or to father and son? Last year I received several complaints from organizations in my constituency to the effect that the wheat board was attempting to get brothers to sell wheat under one permit instead of, as before, under two or three. The same thing was complained of with regard to father and son. These people fear that if this were carried out they would be told that under the P.F.A. Act they were one unit instead of two or three and thereby the bonus would be cut down. Moreover, it would cause confusion, because if one brother wanted to sell coarse grains and another brother wanted to buy coarse grains, if they were operating under one permit, a transaction of that sort would not be permitted, whereas under separate permits one might sell and the other buy. I cannot understand why, as in the past, brothers should not be allowed to sell under separate permits.


James Angus MacKinnon: The chairman of the wheat board tells me that without knowing more of the circumstances it would be impossible to give an answer.


Victor Quelch: Has there been any definite change in policy, or was this a case of
individual action to meet certain particular cases where they thought a mistake was being made?


James Angus MacKinnon: I am advised that there is no definite change in policy.


Mr. ZAPLITNY:: I was intrigued by the reference of the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario to the wolves and sheep, and I confess that by the time he was through I felt it difficult to distinguish between the wolves and the sheep.
Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontano;: I was the sheep.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: What I wish to refer to is the argument that he tried to develop-or so it struck me at any rate-in favour of what might be called unrestricted or uncontrolled trading as opposed to the direct method. I must say at the outset that for my own part I would prefer to have seen a multilateral rather than a bilateral agreement, because that is the direction in which we are attempting to go in these days. On the other hand, I would rather see a bilateral agreement than none at all. I do not need to go into the reasons for that because it has been covered.
I am not altogether happy or contented with' the terms of the contract because I feel, as I have said before, that the initial price for wheat could have been higher than the price we have obtained. I have a simple calculation here which shows how I make that contention. For example, the initial price was $1.25, with participation certificates of twelve cents on the 1943 crop, making a total of $1.37. If we were to take the pattern set by the government itself in connection with increasing prices, for example the 12J per cent increase on farm implements-and that seems to be the pattern right along for manufactured articles-and added 12J per cent to the $1.37, or eighteen cents, we would bring the price up to $1.55. I think the government could have been bold enough to take that step and to have guaranteed a price of $1.55 for four years, instead of for two years.
On the other hand, however, I cannot bring myself to agree with those ideas which have been expressed by hon. members to my right, and for this reason. I have listened carefully in the last two days to speeches made by hon. members in the Progressive Conservative party, and I have failed thus far in my own mind to crystallize anything in the form of an alternative to this agreement. We have heard considerable by way of denunciation of it, and some of the criticism was good. But
Supply-Trade and Commerce

I have not heard anything which could be put in the place of this agreement which would merit my support.
The only indication we have had along that line was what we heard to-day, and that amounted to going back to the principle of laissez-faire which was so roundly condemned by the hon. member himself. The process of accusing the leader of this group of welcoming the agreement because it means regimentation, giving orders, and all those terrible things which are supposed to be tied to controls, I cannot accept, because it is not so. We must definitely make up our minds that this is true, as long as we live, in any society, because we have reached the point where somebody is going to do the controlling. The only choice I can see is as to whether we shall have control, in which we as a parliament can participate, or whether we shall have control of our prices from the outside.
Apparently the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario prefers control by people from the outside. Evidently he would think that if we were to have nothing to do with the setting of prices here, everybody would be happy. The result would be that somebody would set the price for us; somebody would set this mythical world price. It might be some monopoly or trust company or bank over which we have no control. I object to that type of control. If we are to have the control or regimentation which is necessary, then let us have such control emanate from a public body which can be controlled in turn by the voters of this country. Then we shall have a say in how much control there will be and in which respects we shall have it. If we do not do that we shall have to accept controls which are imposed upon us by private enterprise, for its own benefit.


George Hugh Castleden: I should like to say a few words in reply to the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario, who made reference to the leader of this party and to his hailing of this agreement. I heard clearly what my leader said, and I noticed he said that whereas this agreement gave stability, and whereas it gave for a period of years some security to the farmer, he hailed it as a step in the right direction.
Apparently the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario is very much afraid that we are leading to regimentation, and that such regimentation will not be to his liking. I think the rank and file of people in Canada who are going to benefit from such control as this will hail this contract. The people who will squeal about it are those who previously operated the grain exchange and the stock exchange, those who speculated to their own advantage

and to the detriment of others. We shall have squealing from the monopolies who, to their own advantage, have the power to withhold necessities from the rank and file of the people. So far as I am concerned, and so far as the rank and file of the people in this country are concerned, we are not going to worry about that regimentation, even if it means the elimination of those people who maintain their rackets in that particular field.
Then, the hon. member seemed somewhat concerned about what the ultimate result would be when we approach the international field. When nations throughout the world carry on an exchange of agreements on this basis, through a process of governments arranging with governments rather than with exchanges and people on world exchanges, or with world monopolies, it is to the advantage of the rank and file and for the benefit of people everywhere, rather than for the benefit of just a few who may be in control in the international field. Under this process we have regimentation in the right place, and I do not think the rank and file of people will object to it.


Mr. BURTON:: I listened with a good deal of attention, as I usually do, when the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario speaks.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then I wonder why you do not agree with me.


Joseph William Burton: He did admit that we must have some regulation.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I always have.


Joseph William Burton: He also says that we must be realistic. I would say to him that I remember only too well that period following the first great war when there was a reopening of trading in wheat on the Winnipeg grain exchange, and when we had an example of people trying to operate the economy of our country along the lines which apparently the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario is advocating: "Be sure you do not have any regimentation. Be sure your regulations will not hurt those who want to go ahead with their system of laissez-faire"-of which the hon. member himself seems now to be somewhat dubious.
There are thousands upon thousands of farmers in western Canada who remember, most realistically, the period of time in the thirties, when the government in power had much the same conception about how the affairs of the country should be run as does the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario, when we had the privilege of producing some of the finest wheat we ever produced in our

Supply-Veterans Affairs
lives, the very best of No. 1 hard. You know, Mr. Chairman, I am so realistic that I remember only too well the days when I hauled that wheat to the elevators and got thirty-eight cents a bushel for it.


James Arthur Ross: Was it worth any
more than that in any other country of the world at that time?


Joseph William Burton: I would add that there
were regulations then. There was regimentation, not regimentation by government, but regimentation by those who controlled the marketing of grain in our country. When we talk about regimentation we must remember that very often there is regimentation and control exercised by people who are not acting on behalf of the people generally, but rather on behalf of a small group.


James Arthur Ross: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Joseph William Burton: Certainly.


James Arthur Ross: Could the hon. member have obtained any more for a bushel of wheat in any other nation during the thirties than he got in Canada at that time-from any government, including the socialist governments of that time?


Joseph William Burton: I am not excusing the
successors of the union government any more than I am excusing others. Had the governments of those days had the vision and foresight following the first great war to have consummated agreements similar to this one, in all probability we would not have had the condition later on which was referred to by the hon. member for Souris.
I should like to say a few words about this agreement. The leader of this group has spoken, as well as other hon. members in the group. I believe-and I am convinced that this goes for many farmers throughout Canada -that while in this agreement there may be certain provisions which are not entirely to our satisfaction, and while there may be some things-some of which have been mentioned- we should like to have improved, by and large the farmers of this country, and especially those who would come under the operations of this policy announced by the government, are going to accept it as a step in the right direction. They are doing that because they consider that, despite its shortcomings, there is much good in it.


Thomas John Bentley: I am not going to make a lengthy speech, but rise simply to ask a question of the minister.
I would say first of all, however, that I should like to draw one inconsistency to the 63260-306
attention of the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario. The hon. member is always so good1-natured, polite and courteous that I know he will not object to my drawing this to his attention. He read from an article in the London Economist, I believe he said it was, and during the course of his reading he came to a point where he made the observation, "I do not quite understand that, myself." But he indicated in his remarks that he agreed with the article, even though there were some parts in it he did not quite understand.
I have a question which I have asked before, but perhaps I did not ask it clearly enough to get the answer I had expected. Therefore it was my own fault that I did not get the right answer. My question is this. The wheat board is going to accept delivery of all wheat for the next four years. It will deliver approximately 160 million bushels this year direct to Britain, according to contract. There will be other amounts left over for outside markets, wherever they may be found. Does the wheat board intend to offer for sale on the pit of the Winnipeg grain exchange the wheat which is not covered by the contract with Great Britain?


James Angus MacKinnon: No.


Mr. STEPHENSON:: We have heard a lot about western wheat, so much, in fact, that one would almost conclude that everyone comes from the west. But we have farmers in Ontario who produce Ontario winter wheat. Would the minister explain why there is a difference between the price of Ontario winter wheat and the price of western wheat?


James Angus MacKinnon: At the present time Ontario wheat brings five cents a bushel more than western wheat.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: I understand that wheat here was selling at $1.26 recently. I know of one farmer who delivered1 it at that price, but the western wheat price is $1.35.


James Angus MacKinnon: It is $1.26 plus the 14cent rise.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: But this was just in the last week.


Thomas John Bentley: We only got ours this year on August 1.


James Angus MacKinnon: The price to-day is $1.40.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
H4. Departmental administration, $1,554,712.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: It is refreshing to get away from all this talk about wheat and chaff we

Supply-Veterans Affairs

have been smothered in for the last three or four days. Coming from the maritime provinces, I find myself in somewhat the same position as the hon. member for Durham, in wondering if there is any other part of Canada except the three prairie provinces.
I believe it has been the practice to permit a general debate when the first item of each department is called. I do not intend to take up much time this afternoon, nor do I fell I would be justified in doing so. Veterans affairs have been discussed not only in the house when the bills respecting veterans were before it but, as every hon. member knows, for weeks and weeks in the veterans affairs committee. I do not think much more could be said either here or anywhere else on the subject. Any attempt at a lengthy discussion must result in repetition. At this stage of the session I would not feel justified in proceeding at length, and I am sure most other hon. members would feel the same way.
However, there is one point I believe I should emphasize, and it is this, that if there should be any lack of criticism in these estimates at the present time it arises from the fact that the subject matter has been discussed on other occasions, and such lack of discussion must not be considered by the government as an indication of entire satisfaction with the results obtained thus far. Many hon. member know that we pressed for things in committee meetings which we did not get. It would take too long this afternoon to mention them in detail.
However, I might say that the Veterans' Land Act has come in for a considerable amount of criticism. Many settlers feel they are not getting what they should get. There is criticism in connection with small holdings, and the building of houses under the Veterans' Land1 Act.
Then the matter of imperials was discussed, and many hon. members expressed the view that the imperials were not justly treated. Mention has been made of the fire fighters- and I bring these matters to the attention of the committee only to show that, while there may not be extensive criticism of the minister's estimates there are still many things which could and have been criticized in the past.
I have noticed1 that on occasions hon. members bring to the house letters which they have received from constitutents setting out certain points of criticism. I am satisfied, from the number I have received, that if all hon. members were to bring their personal letters to the house and proceed to read them, practically nothing else would be done.

We have been told by the minister, and to a great extent we agree, that the legislation put through the house has been good. I think he said it was the best to be found in any country in the world. While we do not all agree on that-I have no doubt the United States consider they have some of the best veterans legislation in the world'-we do agree that our legislation is good-. There can be no doubt about that. As I said a few da3-s ago, there is no reason why Canada should not have good legislation for its veterans, because I do not believe there is any country in the world better fitted than this Canada to look after its veterans.
When one stops to consider the situation in other countries he recalls that most of the countries in Europe were overrun by war and suffered far more than we did. Their cities, towns and public utilities were destroyed and ravaged, and the people are bankrupt. So that I say Canada is in a 'better position to look after her veterans than is almost any other country. While we may claim great credit for it, and while we may be entitled to credit, yet it would be veiy much to our discredit if it were not true.
The most serious criticism being made in Canada to-day in connection with veterans affairs is not with the legislation which was dealt with by the veterans affairs committee, and which has been passed in the form of bills, as with the administration. As has been mentioned time after time in this house, the two matters which concern the veterans most to-day are jobs and housing. I know these come under other departments, but they are the two great problems for the veteran. They must be solved by the government and by this country if our veterans are to be properly rehabilitated and receive what we consider is their due for the suffering they have undergone and the sacrifice they made for this country and for civilization.
We have passed many acts. As I said a few moments ago, they are good acts, but the best intentions in the world as far as those acts are concerned will be frustrated unless they are properly administered. The passing of an act is sometimes quite a simple matter, but it is an entirely different matter to carry out the terms of an act. I have pointed out before, and I think it will bear repeating, that at the head of these different departments of the veterans affairs are men who are capable, but there has been some reason for complaint in connection with the men to be found across the country. I suppose- that is owing to the fact that the department cannot always get

Supply-Veterans Affairs
the best men. Sometimes, if these men are not properly checked they do not take the interest in their work they should.
That is not only true in this country; it applies to others as well. I have read articles about what happened in the United States after the last war, particularly with reference to hospitalization. After the last war, the public there began to lose interest in the veterans and there was not as good administration as there should have been. I hope that that will not happen to veterans of this war. I trust that these new acts will be so administered that there will be little fault to be found as far as the veterans are concerned.
I think we all recognize the fact that the soldier finished his job when the war ended. He did a splendid job. During the war there were many organizations which rendered assistance in 'hospitals and other service organizations. They did much to help those who were carrying the burden of war. It has been the experience in the past that, when a war is over, people turn to their own duties and responsibilities and leave this other responsibility to the government. They more or less wash their hands of it. I hope that that will not be the case after this war.
There are many large hospitals from one end of the country to the other and there are many service men who will have to remain in those hospitals for years to come. There are many social organizations which could lighten t'heir burden and assist them in many other ways. As I say, I hope that, now that the war is over, these matters will not be left entirely to civil service officials or to the Department of Veterans Affairs, but that these social organizations which did such a splendid work during the war will feel that they still have a responsibility to the soldier who has to spend his time in hospital.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): In a word may I thank the hon. member for Royal for the typically cooperative and constructive remarks he has made this afternoon. They only reflect his attitude all through the meetings of the committee on veterans affairs. In regard to the committees he has mentioned, I can assure him that conferences of our local committees are going on all across the country. Their work has been most helpful and constructive and is tremendously appreciated.
I do not think I should detain the committee at present except to answer such questions as may be asked. We had a splendid committee and I should like to pay a tribute to the members before these estimates are through. I happen to have been thirty years in parliament, and never in my life have I 63260-306J
seen a committee so sustained in their devotion to the public service, both in the cause of the veterans and the cause of Canada, as was the veterans affairs committee of this parliament. Whatever may be the vicissitudes of public life in the future, the members of this committee will always have the reward of conscience from a task well done. If I were in charge of giving out awards, I would grant each one the Canada medal.


Percy Ellis Wright: On behalf of this group, I should like to say a word on this item. It is not my intention to enter into any prolonged debate and I am not even going to repeat the remarks of the hon. member for Royal. I think he has covered fairly well the points on which there might have been any difference of opinion in the committee. While we did not get all the things we wanted, there was cooperation on the part of the government in granting at least part of our requests. I hope that the same cooperation will exist in the future, because there is no doubt that after we come back to another parliament we shall have found that there are inconsistencies in these acts which will need eliminating. I hope that we shall have the same cooperation from the government in connection with listening to those complaints and remedying some of them.
As the hon. member for Royal has said, you can have the best act in the world, but if the administration and the regulations passed under it are not sympathetic the whole act will be spoiled. Taking it as a whole, I think the administration of these veterans acts has been good, but there will occur in different parts of the dominion inconsistencies which we as members will feel we must bring to the attention of the government. I hope that there will not be any heated arguments when we bring up such matters, because we do so knowing that they are just complaints which should be remedied.
There was one matter which I brought to the attention of the minister a short time ago. This had to do with conflict with respect to veterans regulations concerning men getting medical treatment during the first year after discharge, and certain provincial acts, particularly one in Saskatchewan, with respect to automobile accidents. I hope that the minister will have an opportunity to iron out these difficulties. It is the little things that really make a difference between success or failure in the administration of veterans legislation. It is the failure to remedy a thing quickly enough, to let it drag on, that gives the black jye to what might otherwise be good veterans legislation.
Supply-Veterans Affairs

I believe that we have put through reasonably good veterans legislation. As I said before, perhaps it is not as complete as some of us would have liked. If we were responsible for its administration, perhaps we would not go as far as we are prepared to go when we are in opposition. If we are fair we shall admit these things. I urge the department to give sympathetic consideration to the little differences that will occur throughout the country and have them remedied as quickly as possible so that they will not become open sores and cause dissension among our veterans.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I want to thank my hon. friend for his remarks.


Victor Quelch: On behalf of this group, I want to say that I agree wholeheartedly with the remarks of the two previous speakers. I do not think anything will be gained by repeating what has already been said. I was a member of the committee which sat last year and the greater part of this session. We covered every phase and angle of veterans affairs, so that it would be a sheer waste of time to travel over the same ground again. The point made by the last speaker was a very good one. No doubt, when we get back to our constituencies, we shall find that certain acts are not working out to the best advantage, but I am satisfied that if we bring defects to the attention of the minister he will give our representations every consideration, and that at the next session, if we have found serious trouble with the legislation, the minister will give us every cooperation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Thank you.
Mr. IiERRIDGE: As a member of the veterans affairs committee I want to support the remarks of the hon. member for Royal, the hon. member for Melfort and the hon. member for Acadia. I do not think there is any necessity at this time, after the long discussions we have had in the veterans affairs committee to deal with these estimates at length. I want to say that I enjoyed working with the other members of the committee and that throughout the whole of our meetings the spirit was excellent. The intention of all the members was to serve the men they were appointed to serve. I am sure that all members of the house, all veterans and the people of the country will watch with great interest the workings of our veterans legislation during the months ahead, and no doubt next session we shall be prepared to make suggestions that experience will justify. I wish to suggest through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister that it would be of great advantage to members of the house if they could obtain a copy of the consolidated acts relating to veterans.
[Mr. Wright.[


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is already being arranged, as soon as the senate approves the legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
445. Eistriet administration, $3,489,288.
Mr. HARKNESS:: I notice that there are nine district administrators, with salaries ranging from $3,000 to $5,700. Would the minister indicate on what basis these districts are organized? Are they on a provincial basis, or are they military districts, and what is the reason for the wide variation in salaries?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The basis is an approximation in conformity with military districts, but sometimes it has been necessary to form sub-regional districts for purposes of better administration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
447. Treatment services, $13,761,079.
Mr. FULTON:: In keeping with the spirit of cooperation displayed this afternoon, it is not my intention to embark on criticism of this item, but I would appreciate it if the minister would give some thought to methods by which treatment in hospitals could be made more readily available to the veterans. I have in mind the Shaughnessy hospital at Vancouver. A common complaint there is that the men are kept lining up for sometimes two or three days, and the men themselves say sometimes weeks, without actually getting to see a doctor. Then an appointment is made for a certain day. The veteran goes to the admitting office and is told to go over there or to sit down here, and he may stay there for some days. The generality of this complaint leads one to the thought that there must be a shortage of staff in these hospitals which gives rise to this condition. I know that in that hospital most if not all of the doctors are veterans, and I am quite certain they would not willingly keep any veteran waiting. It must be a shortage of staff, and when one looks through these items and sees the salaries that are paid to these doctors one finds a possible explanation of the shortage. I think the same condition exists with regard to the nurses in these hospitals. I know that some of these hospitals have had the greatest difficulty in getting doctors and nurses, and some effort was made to solve that problem by seconding medical personnel from the armed forces; but now the medical personnel in the armed forces are trying to get out of the armed forces as fast as they can. Would the minister make some comment on that and say whether the salary position is responsible for the shortage and whether, in that case,

Supply-Veterans Affairs
any increase will be made in the salaries to make service in these hospitals more attractive to the best class of medical personnel.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: About six or nine months ago the remarks of my hon. friend would have been abundantly justified, but since then we have reorganized the whole medical services of the Department of Veterans Affairs under the able and, may I say, brilliant direction of Brigadier Warner. The salaries, of the doctors are being raised. That was one of the problems that we have had for the last twenty-five years, and my hon. friend is quite correct in what he said on that point. The salaries of the doctors who were working for pensions and national health were far too low, but now we have the whole medical fraternity in Canada united with the department. We have the family doctor scheme; we have consultants; we have specialists; and the salaries have been raised to a maximum of $7,200. Formerly it was approximately $4,200. So that the problem which my hon. friend has quite properly mentioned has been met.


Mark Cecil Senn: In almost every locality
throughout the country there are local doctors to whom the veterans go for treatment, and I have heard complaints that the scale of fees provided for these doctors is altogether too low. Is anything being done to see that these doctors receive fair remuneration for the work they do for the veterans?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. Within the last few weeks the scale of fees of the local or family doctors for home calls, office calls and hospital visits has been revised substantially.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Does this item of treatment services cover the veterans of the first great war?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: When a veteran who suffered from gas in the first great war continues to be sick and requires treatment and medicine, does he have to pay his local doctor for treatment, medicine and so forth?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If he is a pensioner he does not have to pay for treatment. In any event, he may obtain domiciliary care in a departmental institution.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I know one veteran who, from my own observation, is greatly afflicted with a lung condition. He gets a very small pension of $21 or $22 a month, which is wholly inadequate, for he is unable to work except very occasionally, and his whole pension
goes into medicine. Under the new veterans legislation will he be qualified to obtain medicine free?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He is entitled to a hospital allowance at any time when receiving treatment for a pensionable condition.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is he entitled to free medicine?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He can get treatment and hospital allowances when being treated for a pensionable condition.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Can he get free treatment at home?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No; only in a hospital or in one of our institutions for domiciliary care.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If he stays at home he is not entitled to free medicine?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He can obtain medicine while on out-patient treatment for pensionable condition if he does not want to go into the hospital.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If he went as an outpatient would he get medicine free?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, absolutely free.


Mr. CARDIFF:: In the case of doctors serving in military hospitals, are they paid a salary or fees, or how are they remunerated?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They may serve on salary, or they may serve part time on fees.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to take this opportunity to make a brief reference to the work which is being dqne at the paraplegic centre in Toronto called Lyndhurst. The men at that institution are such as prior to this war and even during the war until very recently would be condemned to be bed-ridden for the rest of their lives. I am not qualified to discuss the medical aspects, but I have been there and seen the work done. The patients are men who have suffered spinal injuries during the war and who, I am told, until this school was established and the treatment made available, might have lived for some three to five years, but within a very short time would have died, and in the meantime would have been completely bed-ridden and helpless. Under the direction of Lieutenant-Colonel John Counsell, who is himself a paraplegic, a start has been made with special reference to veterans. They took over the large home at Lyndhurst and have a centre there which, I believe, the Department of Veterans Affairs is supporting very generously at the moment. Some tribute should be paid to the work which is being done there, because these
Supply-Veterans Affairs

ex-officers and men whom I have seen are able to get themselves out into their wheel chairs, move themselves around, in some cases even get themselves into and out of cars and taxis, and generally lead a life which, of course, is not a normal life but enables them to look after themselves much more than formerly they could do. I believe there is some trouble in that this centre is anxious to extend its work to include all paraplegics, veterans and others. It is the only existing centre in Canada for that work, and I understand that they have made representations that nonveterans cases be allowed in that centre, to receive the same treatment, and that the work be extended. I wonder if the minister could say whether consideration is being given to that or not, and also, when he makes a statement on it, if he would cover the point in connection with the amount payable by these veterans for their wheel chairs. I regret that I overlooked the facts when the Customs Tariff Act was being discussed. These chairs are manufactured only in the United States; they are a special type, of light aluminum construction, and collapsible, so that the veteran can easily manoeuvre the chair, and when he gets into a car or taxi the chair is capable of being folded up and put in the back trunk. It is not manufactured in Canada; it has to be imported from the United States, and duty is payable on it. I intended to raise this matter when the Customs Tariff Act was before the house and ask that these chairs be exempted from duty. Perhaps the minister would bring it to the attention of the Department of Finance with a view of having these chairs exempted from duty.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I thank my hon. friend for his remarks. I, too, have been through Lyndhurst Lodge. In regard to the wheel chairs, they are purchased and maintained by the department.
This institution for paraplegics is founded upon Mill Hill, in England; and the results have been simply amazing. Perhaps I should give one or two figures to the committee. It is only a small place, with a bed capacity of thirty-seven. At present there are twenty-eight paraplegic patients. The total number of patients who have been to the lodge is sixty, of whom thirty-nine are now out doing useful work or at school. A very limited number of civilian cases are being admitted on a repayment basis from the provincial government. One such case is at the lodge at the present time,
I think a visit to this place is one of the most encouraging experiences in the world.

Men who were completely paralyzed and wholly disabled-at least sixty per cent of them-are now back at work.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My information is at
variance with the minister's. I was told that they had to pay for their chairs themselves, and that is why payment of the customs duty is important. If there has been a change recently I am glad to hear of it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not veterans. That
may be true of civilian patients, but not a single veteran has to pay for or maintain his wheel chair. He never has.


Thomas Langton Church: The vote for this particular item, treatment and services, is one of the utmost importance to soldiers and their dependents. Wide additions have been made in the several bills which were passed relating to this matter. The efficiency of our doctors and nurses in the last war-a matter to which I referred the other day in connection with one of the minister's bills-has been greatly increased in comparison with the first war, although it was splendid then. But there are some features of this treatment affecting outdoor patients and others who come under the scope of the several bills which call for attention. One or two expenditures are not included in the new bill. I understand it is the policy of the minister to apply this particular item to additional services. Will soldier's families and the dependents as well be included? There is some provision for dependents in one of the bills. One cannot but think of all the universities have done in connection with this item, the rapid strides in science, medicine and surgery which have been made, and the large numbers of doctors and nurses whose services in our hospitals here and overseas form a most commendable feature of this legislation. Do not forget that but for the veterans who enlisted in this war we should have had all the horrors of war on our own soil, in Ontario and Quebec and the other provinces; and the best treatment the minister can give these veterans and their families is none too good for them.
I appreciate what has been done by the universities to assist in connection with our Sunnybrook hospital, upon the erection of which about $18 million will be spent. It is going to be an important institution, and special types of cases from all parts of Ontario and other parts of the country are being dealt with. I notice that the cost of the furniture and many other items for this hospital is being contributed voluntarily-a most commendable feature. I do not see that

Supply-Veterans Affairs
being done in other hospitals throughout the country. Large amounts of equipment, including chairs for amputation cases and many other features which will add to the comfort of the patients, are being collected1, and something is being done for the benefit of outdoor patients. I think a general principle should be applied with regard to the treatment of these cases and the provision of these services.
In addition, I find that there is much complaint from some of the soldiers' families and some of the inmates about the lack of treatment, and the equality of service provided under this item, which I hope will be applied to all who served, in addition to the imperials.
I was very much surprised at the action which was taken this morning as announced by one of our ministers. I appreciate that it does not come under this item, but let me say that it is going to cause wide disunity in this country, and I do not know of anything which will lead to more trouble than this order in council. It should be repealed and annulled.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend mentioned treatment for dependents. There are treatment allowances for dependients, but not treatment as such.
In regard to the Sunnybrook hospital, we intend to move patients in there immediately, with a gradual infiltration of patients as the construction and establishment of staff develop to completion.


Mr. McLURE:: I hesitate to say even a few words since I am not a veteran of either the first or the last great war. But at this time I should like to refer to something which has been in my mind on other occasions when veterans matters were before this house. In my humble opinion, of all committees dealing with veterans or other affairs which have ever worked in this house, no committee, from my experience of it, deserves as much credit as the veterans committee which we have had this session. They certainly did good work; they had in mind only one thing, as far as I could see from their reports, and that was to do everything possible in the interests of the veterans of both wars. After saying that, I have no criticism to make, but I would point, out to the minister that in our province the situation is rather different from that in other parts of the dominion. As the minister knows, he gave us a grant for two hospitals there. These, of course, even when the buildings are completed, will not be quite sufficient to accommodate the veterans who are seeking hospitalization, and when the veterans have to go to the other provinces the inconvenience
is great not only to themselves but also to their relatives at home. If from time to time we appeal to the Minister of Veterans Affairs in special cases, all I am asking for at the present time, without any criticism whatever, it that he will look into our isolated conditions there.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I thank my hon. friend and assure him that I hope to carry out an intention of long standing, to visit the beautiful island in the gulf in the near future, when I shall look into all these problems.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: You will be welcome.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
H8. Prosthetic services, $817,758.
Douglas Scott Harkness: It used to be the situation, and I should like to know whether it still is, that veterans who were deaf were supplied with hearing aids. They had to take the particular hearing apparatus supplied, whether it suited them or not. The department used to maintain that it was good and they had to take it or do without any. Some of these men contended that while it might be suitable to others, it did not meet their needs. They want to have the regulation changed so that they can get the particular type of apparatus that suits them. Can the veteran now do so?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. About eighteen months ago, we began to get this type of appliances for deaf veterans. At that time we supplied the Zenith appliance. We have a specialist from the deaf themselves, as in the case of the blind and the amputation cases, and if the specialist is not satisfied with the standard apparatus he can choose another.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
452. Veterans insurance, $143,540.
Douglas Scott Harkness: This vote is for $143,000 which appears to be for administration, having nothing to do with any losses there may be by reason of premiums being small. How many policies are in force and what are the amounts? This is a fair-sized item, and I have been wondering to what extent the veterans have taken advantage of the insurance clause, and how many policies have been actually issued.


Walter Adam Tucker: Business as of June 30, total number of policies under veterans insurance, 6,599; total amount, $19,693,000.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Well, 6,599 policies
would not seem to be very many in connection with this item of $143,000 for administration. One aspect of this division about which I am curious is advertising and publicity, $50,000.
Supply-Veterans Affairs

What form does that advertising take and what good does it do? Is it necessary? I have seen none of this advertising and, as a veteran, I shouldl like to know in what form it was put out, whom it was sent to, and the details along that line. I doubt whether it is a necessary expenditure.


Walter Adam Tucker: For the most part it has taken the form of information booklets that were put out to all the troops and issued from time to time. With further reference to veterans insurance, the number of policies, as I have said, was 6,599 ; 84 declined, 108 withdrawn, 741 pending, actual business in force, 5,666, and the total amount, $16,705,000. That is at June 30 last. The advertising largely took the form of issuing pamphlets, giving tables of rates and so on.


Douglas Scott Harkness: How many pamphlets were put out and to whom did they go? I did not get one. It happened to be a subject that I was interested in because I considered taking a policy.


Walter Adam Tucker: They are made available to everyone from the service and there are inquiries coming in all the time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: How many were put out?


Walter Adam Tucker: We have not the exact figures but we will get them and furnish them.


Mr. McKAY:: This item is one we can definitely commend the department for instituting. Does the government handle all these policies themselves as straight government policies, or are any policies underwritten by the ordinary companies?


Walter Adam Tucker: They are our policies.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Payments to or for veterans and dependents-
45S.	European war pensions-world war I, ?37,500,000.
Edmund Davie Fulton: This is the first item dealing with pensions, and I wish to raise the question of making available to pensioners some extra payment in recognition of the increase in the cost of living. I have seen correspondence between the minister or officials of the department and those who raise the question, and the answer given by the department is that when the pensions were first instituted they were found to be not sufficient and a cost of living bonus was added thereto between the years 1919 and 1925. In 1925, although I am not quite certain of the year, this cost of living bonus was incorporated in the pension itself, and the answer is given that there is already an increase in the basic rates to take care of the increased cost of living. I do not 	iflfiTT
think that is strictly accurate, because it must be admitted that the cost of living has recently increased over the period before the war, and in the case of civil service salaries that increase has recently been recognized in the form of cost of living bonus which is now incorporated in the civil servant's salary. In the same way these pensioners feel that they should have a cost of living bonus. In their case it is more important than in the case of civil servants or anyone who is not a pensioner. The reason is that a pensioner, because of his disability, is less able to increase his earnings to take care of the increase in the cost of living. He is getting a pension because he is disabled, and because he is disabled he cannot go out and get extra work or look for a new job at higher wages. So that many of these men are finding themselves in actual hardship because of the increased cost of living. I know the Canadian Legion has brought this matter to the attention of the department, and I should like to know the attitude the minister takes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend is making himself thoroughly popular, of course, and I am going to make myself thoroughly unpopular in my reply. In 1919 a bonus of twenty per cent was authorized for the basic rate of pension then in force, $600 per annum, bringing the rate of pension for total disability to $720 per annum. The cost of living index was then 126-5. In 1920 the bonus was increased to fifty per cent, making the rate of pension for total disability $900 per annum. The cost of living index was then 145-4. This rate remained in effect until 1925, when the bonus was incorporated into the rate of pension, which has remained the same ever since, namely $900. The cost of living index in 1925 had been reduced to 119-8. According to the latest available information, the cost of living index as at July 1, 1946, was 125-1 as against 145-4 in 1920.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: In 1920 did they have the same basic year they had in 1946?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: These varying rates in the cost of living index are supplied by the bureau of statistics from year to year. I have given several years; I mentioned 1919, 1920, 1925 and then 1946.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: But may I ask what is the basic year for the 1920 figure?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The bonus was increased to fifty per cent, making the rate of pension $900 per annum. The cost of living index was then 145-4.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But when we are discussing the basic rate of $900 per annum, it should be made clear that this amount, which is $75

Supply-Veterans Affairs
a month, is the maximum pension; that is to say, the pension for total disability. A man who is 100 per cent disabled gets $75 a month.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: A single man.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes. I do not think this thing should be looked at from the point of view of-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Of course, if he is totally disabled he may have some allowance for helplessness as well.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, if he requires a fulltime nurse. The point is that the pension for 100 per cent disability is $75 a month. I do not think this thing should be looked at from the point of view of whether we are going to make ourselves good fellows or bad fellows, or popular or unpopular. If the minister thinks I am doing this to make myself popular I can only say the government must have added the cost of living bonus to the salaries of civil servants in order to make itself popular.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am informed by my colleague that the cost of living basic index is based upon 1913.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is not relevant to what I am saying at the moment. I think this matter should be looked at from the point of view of whether or not a man can support himself on the scale of pension he now receives. I do not think it can be said that $75 a month is over-generous for a man who is 100 per cent disabled. The point I was making was that if the cost of living goes up, these disabled men suffer more than a person who is not disabled, because by reason of their disability they are less able to make casual earnings to take care of the increased cost of living. The minister in his answer has referred to the points which I said had already been raised! in reply to the representations from the legion, and I take it that is the final decision, that there will be no increase to offset the higher cost of living?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is nothing final in the mysterious processes of government.


Thomas Langton Church: I want to ask whether any money is provided under this item for imperials. Some of these men have been living here for thirty years. When the first great war broke out they went Overseas and1 enlisted of their own volition, though they were Canadians then and have been ever since. I should like to see some provision made for hospital treatment for themselves and their families, and as to rate of exchange in pay. Some of them are in very bad condition; it is almost pitiable to see them. Here we are spending all these millions; and the people who went to
fight in the first war, even though they were imperials and even though many of them have been living in Canada for forty years, get nothing.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Again being unpopular, I must abide by the principle I have always maintained, that unless these imperials were domiciled in Canada before they served with the imperial or other forces, they should not have precedence over Canadians who were born in this country and who do not get these benefits. We have quite a number of Canadians who went to England but through no fault of their own were not able to get to France; that was during the first war. Unless they are pensioners they do not qualify for the war veterans' allowance; and I think this committee must deal with them and give them recognition before any others who come from any other country, no matter how gallantly they have served the empire, are given these benefits which our own Canadians do not get. I have taken that stand consistently, and as long as I am head of this department I intend to abide by it. I realize it is not popular, but I think it is right.


Thomas Langton Church: If they had deserted they would have got a gold watch and an illuminated address from this parliament.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In the riding of Davenport we have quite a number who, I suppose, would come under the heading of imperial soldiers; they were soldiers before they came here prior to 1914, and lived in that riding for four or five years.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Then they were domiciled here and they are protected.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Rut when the war broke out they went to England and enlisted.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They are protected.


John Ritchie MacNicol: As long as they were living here before the war?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They are treated the same as Canadian if they were domiciled here in 1914, before going to war. They are protected.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Even if they served in the imperial forces?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, absolutely; or in the allied forces of His Majesty.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: As the minister no doubt knows, a new type of cheque is being issued to pensioners, made of a sort of semi-cardboard, which is quite stiff and which bears a notice saying, "Do not fold." This means it is not possible for a man to put the cheque in
Supply-Veterans Affairs

his pocketbook. I have had a number of complaints in this connection, and I should like to ask the minister whether these complaints are general, to his knowledge.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am glad to hear that complaint from my hon. friend. I understand the cheque in question is not issued by the Canadian pension commission but by the treasury as such.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall the item carry? Carried. Item 454. Carried. Item 455. Carried.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Mr. Chairman, you are calling these items after six o'clock.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: They are not carried; it is after six o'clock.


William Ross Macdonald: It is just six o'clock. I was so interested in having the items carried that I neglected to look at the clock.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The last one carried is 453.


William Ross Macdonald: I should like to make it clear that after eight o'clock we shall start with item 456. Is that agreed?


Eric Bowness McKay: No; 455.


William Ross Macdonald: Very well; at eight
o'clock we shall start with item 455.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Payments 'to or for veterans and dependents-
455. Unemployment assistance, $100,000.


Eric Bowness McKay: Is this what we normally call out-of-work benefits?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Eric Bowness McKay: If not, will the minister explain the item, and also indicate the number who received assistance last year, and to date this year?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This has nothing to do with out-of-work benefits. This is an old vote which, if my memory is correct, was established in 1932 to meet unemployment conditions prevailing at that time in connection with those in the various branches of the department across Canada who needed assistance. It was our hope that it would be abolished, but unfortunately we have not yet been able to have it abolished, with the result that, to a certain extent, it still exists.


Thomas Langton Church: Does it now include any amount for unemployed soldiers? I notice that the mayor and board of control of Toronto have been complaining about the large number of soldiers there out of work.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is definitely designed for unemployed pensioners, and only for unemployed pensioners.


Thomas Langton Church: They say unemployment among them will be worse next winter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Payments to or for veterans and dependents-
456.	Hospital and other allowances

world war I, $750,000.
Eric Bowness McKay: Why is there an increase in this item? It would seem to stand to reason that there would be fewer veterans qualifying now than there were a year ago.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am informed that there is a gradual increase, and that this is to be expected on account of the age of a number of the pensioners from world war I receiving treatment in our hospitals.


Eric Bowness McKay: They would all be cases of pensioners?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I should like at this point to refer to Mr. Walter Callow in Camp Hill hospital, Nova Scotia. I should imagine the minister has received some communication from him. This man has been absolutely crippled, and is blind; they call him the stone man. He cannot move. But, as I remember, through his efforts some thousands of cigarettes were obtained for soldiers overseas.


Mr. ISNOR:: Millions.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Hundreds of thousands, probably millions.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Callow has designed a carrier for wheel chairs for the purpose of taking crippled soldiers to sports events. Has the department in any way encouraged him in this matter? The other day I noticed in a United States paper an article which said that they were designing carriers to take their helpless patients to such events. I was wondering whether our department had considered Mr. Callow's suggestion.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I believe I know Mr. Callow as well as most people do, and I know he has been doing marvellous work for the last twenty or twenty-five years. However, those who are in charge of the paraplegic curative treatment do not consider the chair he has designed to be the most effective.

Supply-Veterans Affairs


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It is a carrier, not a chair.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is required is a chair which can be placed in an automobile. Although they are most grateful to him for the work he has done, they do not at the present time recommend the design he has submitted.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I do not know that Mr. Callow has asked the government to assist. He has been seeking private donations, I believe; whether he has made application to the government for assistance, I cannot say.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: None.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I am glad the hon. member for Royal has mentioned Mr. Callow. On more than one occasion I have gone on record as advocating every possible assistance to him. I believe, too, that the hon. member for Peel has added his word to those of other hon. members. I sincerely trust that the minister will give every possible consideration to this veteran, not only because of his physical condition, but because of the splendid effort he put forth driving the recent war to help make easier the lives of those who, like him, have been disabled. In ' addition, he performed splendid work by providing cigarettes by the millions for those overseas.
I would suggest that we could provide him with more suitable quarters at Camp Hill. I know the minister has had this matter under his personal supervision, and has been sympathetic toward it. May I point out that there is an office at present not occupied which this veteran could use to further the cause which he has supported.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall be glad to take that into my personal consideration at once. As regards the design which has been submitted, the official finding of the department- rightly or w'rongly-is that we require folding, collapsible chairs, which will go into the ordinary motor car. His design is somewhat different, but the matter is worthy of further consideration.


George James Tustin: Perhaps I should have asked on an earlier item the question I am about to ask. However, I 'would point out that I have received letters, mostly from veterans of world war I, who are receiving partial pensions, requesting that they be given a cost of living allowance. I could bring a number of cases to the minister's attention. I might refer to one case of a man, the father of four or five children, who is receiving a thirty per cent disability pension and! who is unable to work for more than twenty-five per cent of the time.
Pensioners in that position are having a difficult time to get along these days, and in view of the fact that almost every other department is receiving a cost of living bonus,
I was w'ondering if the minister had given consideration to extending that cost of living bonus to pensioners in world wars I and II.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is difficult to give a decisive answer on a question such as has been asked by the hon. member. If the pension is inadequate, the pensioner can apply for a war veterans allowance, and thereby augment the assessment to meet living conditions.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: I should like to add to what has been said by the hon. member for Royal and the senior hon. member for Halifax with respect to Mr. Walter Callow. Mr. Callow comes from my constituency of Cumberland and has been hospitalized since the last war. I believe that he has suffered as greatly as anyone who came out of that war. Those who have had contact with Mr. Callow's work know he has done wonderful things since the last war, and especially during the period of this war. Not only has he assisted in securing funds for cigarettes, but he has suggested a major government policy with respect to hospitalization. He proposes that more attention should be given to improving the equipment in local hospitals as opposed to concentrating on the larger hospitals in cities such as Halifax, Montreal, Toronto and other places. He feels that the returned men would get better attention and be much happier if they were accommodated in the smaller hospitals rather than all being concentrated in the larger institutions. I am very much in sympathy with the policy proposed by Mr. Callow, and I hope that the minister will give it more attention from now on and carry it out, if at all possible. It would be a good thing, not only for the returned men but for the smaller hospitals which are struggling to carry on with their very necessary operations.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall be very happy to look into the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Payments to or for veterans and dependents-*
457.	Gallantry awards, $60,000.
Eric Bowness McKay: What are the benefits given with these different awards?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The total awards
granted were 2,225, and the details follow:
Supply-Veterans Affairs

v.c	Deceased 	
2	Discharged 2D.F.M. .	
56	79With bar	D.F.C. ..	.'.'.'.' ii	52With bar	C.G.M. .	.' .' . .' .' .' .' .' .' .' .' .' ' i	3D.C.M. .	
u	124With bar	M.C	3	5D.S.M. ..	
2	75With bar	M.M	78	1,049With bar	7Promoted	Awaiting	Authorized	since	Promotion	as senior	award	or discharge	N.C.O.	Total....	4371	"'<5	5131	147	2U1	9	*"i	"ii7	"l5	1581	."i	"934	1121	'"<5	60	i,2oi1


Eric Bowness McKay: I appreciate that information, but it does not answer my question. I wanted to know what decorations carry cash awards and what amounts are granted.


Walter Adam Tucker: First, there is the Victoria Cross which carries a $50 per annum award from the date of the act of gallantry for which the award was granted, plus $25 for each bar. This is paid to all ranks below commissioned rank. This may be increased to $375 per annum if the recipient, through age and infirmity or from causes beyond his control, is unable to earn a livelihood. The gratuities paid in the other decorations are as follows:
D.F.C	 $100
D.C.M	 100
D.F.M	 100
C.	G.M	 100
M.M	 100
D.	S.M	 100
These are not payable if the recipient is of commissioned rank. If the recipient is awarded a disability pension he receives 12^ cents a day in lieu of gratuity.


Eric Bowness McKay: The only decoration that
carries a yearly benefit is the Victoria Cross?


Walter Adam Tucker: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Payments to or for veterans and dependents-
458.	Widows' compassionate	allowancesworld war I, $1,800,000.
Mr. KNOWLES:: I realize that this matter has been discussed this year both in the committee on veterans affairs and also when the bill amending the War Veterans Allowances Act was before the house, and- I suppose we have obtained from the government about all that we can hope for this year. However, I feel that this item should not be allowed to pass without some of us stating again to the minister and to the government that we hope next year the amounts paid under these allowances will be raised to at least $40 per month. I hope the minister will continue to give his sympathetic consideration-and I hope it will

produce results-the other requests made by and on behalf of these widows. Without excluding the others, I refer particularly to hospitalization because that is one thing they are vitally concerned about. I urge that something be done about this matter at an early day.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not usually agree with my hon. friend, but I would point out that this vote is for $1,800,000, and it was all done in the last year largely, if I may say so, through the advocacy of the hon. member for Davenport, of the hon. member who has just spoken and, of course, because of the sympathy and generosity of this house.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What is the annual payment per month?


Stanley Howard Knowles: $31.40 per month; try to live on that.
May I ask again if consideration is being given to the question of hospitalization?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: At the present time and for some time to come we shall require all our hospital space for the men who have been fighting. Until the peak of this need for treatment goes down, we cannot give any consideration to providing treatment for anybody else.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am afraid the minister does not understand what these women are asking for. Many of these women are of an age when they have to be taken into hospitals, not those administered by the department but into civilian hospitals. The problem is one of allowances to cover expenses, not one of providing space in a departmental hospital.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I may be making myself thoroughly unpopular this evening, but I say I am against that until the soldiers themselves are completely looked after.


Mir. BLACK MORE:: I do not know whether the minister at any time during the discussion has given the committee a statement of the government's policy with respect to widows of non-pensionable war veterans and, if he

Supply-Veterans Affairs
has not, I should like to have this. Many widows of veterans of the last war are in needy circumstances.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In the first place, certain widows are entitled to pensions as a matter of right. A year ago this house in its wisdom gave attention to what we call nonpensionable widows, and we are providing SI,800,000 in the present estimates for them. At the risk of being criticized, we say that we have been pretty generous.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I do not think the minister should be criticized.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: I do not think we can say we have been pretty generous. I have in mind a widow of a veteran who asked to go overseas during the last war but who was kept here. This man finally died as the result of injuries received. This widow has done everything in her power to raise her family and take care of herself. She is highly qualified for various kinds of work, but she is having the greatest difficulty in finding any work to do. I do not know that this committee can feel that it has been generous to the veterans of the last war so long as we leave widows of that kind to suffer around the country. I do not look upon ourselves as being generous at all. Of course there are those who say the government has no responsibility to them. But I think the country has, and that is why I am appealing to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I was impressed, when this war opened, with the statement that was made in several places. I believe it was made first by a prominent official in New Zealand and then it was repeated by several officials in Canada, that no one should be any worse off because he went to war and no one should be any better off because he did not go to war. I think that is a pretty sound principle. A woman in this position is certainly worse off because her husband went to war, and I shall not feel happy about the matter until some policy is laid down whereby we can give more assistance to widows of this type than we are giving.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I do not think we should let this item pass without saying a word on behalf of the minister. From the very beginning I supported this movement to give non-pensioned widows a pension which they richly deserve, and from the very beginning the minister has been sympathetic at all times to pensioning non-pensioned widows. If he had been opposed to it, we never would have got very far in our efforts for these widows, and so far as I am concerned I feel disposed to thank the minister on behalf of those I am associated with for having gone as far as he
has. But, of course, like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I hope he will go farther by and by.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Payments to or for veterans and dependents-
461. Pensions, North West rebellion, 1885 and general, $15,000.
Mr. COCKERAM:: How many of these pensioners are there?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Including the militia service pension and the additional allowance which this house has made in the last couple of years, there are 12,249.


Alan Cockeram: There are 12,249 pensioners of the North West rebellion?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is militia pensions, plus our pensions.


Thomas Langton Church: I understood, when I was before the committee, that something would be done for the veterans who served in the North West rebellion in 1885. I understood that there was going to be a real clean-up this year of our debt to all these veterans who have served their country. They were the pioneers and predecessors of the present militia. They came from Halifax and the midland counties and from all over Ontario and the Ottawa district and1 the 90th of Winnipeg, and they have never got a cent except under the small amendment that was made last year. Last year's vote of $16,000 has now been cut down to $15,000 for "Pensions, North West rebellion, 1885 and general." I should like to know what is the distinction between the North West field force and "general". These veterans have been granted practically nothing, and it would be almost better to strike out the item than to continue the means test. I admit that an order in council was passed last session providing a very small sum of money for these veterans. They marched in the depths of winter, when it was thirty and forty degrees below zero, across the country around lake Superior before the Canadian Pacific railway was completed. They came from Halifax, the maritimes, Ontario, Winnipeg, to the defence of the prairie provinces and they were responsible for this country not being dislocated. They have been forgotten from 1885 down to to-day, except for a small grant of land hardly any of them ever see. A very small vote was put in the estimates last year, and I give the minister great credit for that, but the way it was applied it did not mean very much, if anything. It would have been far better to strike it out altogether than to apply the means test to these people. The test is well named. They should have received
Supply-Veterans Affairs

the same allowance as the South African veterans got as a right, not as charity. I have been told the reason why they were not treated the same. I do not like to say what the reason is, but I have been told some of the reasons.
I pleaded with the select committee for these veterans, and I want to give credit to that committee, which included members from all sides of the house, for the various bills as to veterans which they recommended to the house. That committee forgot about party politics in the nine bills and they seem to have forgotten all about the North West rebellion. There is no reference to it in the eight or nine veterans bills that passed this house. Why are these men discriminated against?
I met the widow of one of these veterans the other day. She is getting about $29 a month in old age pension. Under this vote she would have been entitled to $39. She wrote me about the matter and I told her to stick to the old age pension since they were to deduct from the $39 the $29 old age receipts. The result, was that she got nothing for 1885. Her husband was one of the finest members of the press in Canada.
It is no credit to our country so to forgot these veterans and to leave these people to the municipalities. That is where they are left, and they get put out of their homes. I know one veteran who lost his books, his desk, his household goods and everything. His house was sold and he never got a nickel. These men had a reunion in June, 1945, on the anniversary of their enlistment. It is a mean way for parliament to treat these men when we are voting $51,000,000 on these various other items for veterans and dependents. I am surprised that members from the other provinces of Canada do not rise and speak on behalf of these veterans. Many of them came from Halifax in the maritime provinces, and they were known as Haligonians. Many of these men are living to-day and they are not in good circumstances. Others came from the other provinces. We owe a debt of gratitude which is long overdue to these people who did so much for the prairie provinces in 1885 before the Canadian Pacifc railway was completed. They should have more supporters than they have in this house when, this item is called. The hon. member for Peel has been a very warm friend of these men. He has veterans of the North West rebellion in his riding, as have the Toronto members. But outside of him, the hon. member for Davenport and the hon. member for York South, we hear little from other members in
favour of these veterans. The means test is well named. It is mean to use the veterans of this country in this way. They are the men who built up the militia in Canada from 1885 on-the old Grenadiers, the Queen's Own, the Body Guard, commanded by Colonel Denison, the Midland Battalion. Tributes and assistance for these men are long overdue. They were the very back-bone of our present militia, and their sons and grandsons served in the South African war and the two great wars.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I must take emphatic exception to my hon. friend's remarks in regard to these old veterans. I have found out that 114 veterans, as a result of what this house did during the last two years, are drawing $54,000, and forty widows are drawing $13,000. In regard to the regulations for the veterans allowance, they are exactly the same for them as they are for those who fought in the first great war. So that I do not think we have been unkind. The total annual obligation arising from what we did here last year is $66,877.


Mr. GILLIS:: I am not going to talk about the Riel rebellion. There are two matters to which I was going to refer under pensions. Unfortunately I was in the industrial relations committee and did not get the chance, so that I should like to say a word on them here.
The first is the matter which I discussed with the pension committee back in 1940. It has reference to a woman divorcing her husband: in the United1 States; he resides -in Canadia. In this case, after the man was divorced in the United States he re-married in Canada, supposing that he had been legally divorced,. He obtained a licence and' was married in a church. The woman lived with him for twenty-six years. He died last year. Despite the fact that she went through all the legal machinery provided in Canada, including a church wedding, in marrying this man, the Pension Act is such that it is held that she was not legally married to this man. I raised the matter on several occasions. I discussed it with the former Minister of Justice, the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, back in 1940 and 1941. He said it might necessitate a change in the divorce laws of Canada and, the war then being on, they did not want to disturb the existing machinery. At this session in the veterans affairs committee the matter was discussed briefly, and I thought that, where there were extenuating circumstances such as I have just described, the commission would be given sufficient latitude to adjudicate a matter of that kind. So I wrote the chainman of the commission and

Supply-Veterans Affairs
he searched the records, and concluded that no latitude was given the commission. That case still stands in abeyance. I was wondering whether the minister could not devise some ways and means of qualifying that widow for a pension. The pensioner with whom she lived had a seventy-five per cent disability. Now that he is dead', she is left at the mercy of the world.


Walter Adam Tucker: Is the hon. member referring to the Adams or the Mackenzie case?


Clarence Gillis: The Adams case. The Mackenzie case is only brief; it has to do with an old soldier who, having remarried in 1944, finds that he can not include his wife in the pension. He is practically living on her. Is there anything we can do about that?


Walter Adam Tucker: First of all, in regard' to the Mackenzie case, as the committee will remember, this question of a deadline was thoroughly discussed in the pension committee and it was decided, and affirmed by this house, that in the case of a marriage after the first of May, 1944, no pension could be given with respect to that wife or widow; however, if the marriage took place before that, and children were born after that deadline, a pension should be paid in respect of them. At the present time there is no way in which Mr. Mackenzie can get a pension in respect of his wife, or his widow if he should unfortunately pass away.
Mr. G I'LL 18: I merely used that case as an illustration. It is a general problem.


Walter Adam Tucker: Of course, as the law stands at present, the commission is bound by that. The Adams case is the case where this gentleman was domiciled in Canada, and was married; his wife abandoned him and went to the United States and divorced him in the state of Vermont, I understand, on grounds which would not be recognized as valid for a divorce in Canada. So the situation is this, that in the first place the divorce was not valid in Canada because the divorce at that time had to be based on the domicile of the husband, and if the woman had tried to get the divorce in Canada she could not have got it because there were not grounds. Then this gentleman married somebody else after his wife had divorced him. At any time he could have got a divorce in Canada on the basis of what his wife had done, but he did not choose to do it, so that his marriage was not valid in Canada.


Clarence Gillis: Well, why was he not
arrested for bigamy? He lived for twenty-six years with that woman.


Walter Adam Tucker: That, of course, is another question; it is a matter of the criminal code. Nevertheless, the marriage was not valid. The committee may be interested to know why we adhere to that view. We do so because, if we permitted people to go away and get divorces which are not valid in Canada, and come back to Canada, we might have disputes in respect of several wives. The question is, which wife would you recognize, unless you go by the law of Canada?


Gordon Graydon: Are you not getting into a bit of trouble here?


Walter Adam Tucker: No, I am not. I am being very careful, and trying to point out why the law is not changed. Generally it is the husband who leaves and goes to the United States and gets a divorce which is not valid in Canada; then he comes back to Canada and marries here. Of course, under Canadian law his first wife is his lawful wife; but if you decided, regardless of the law of Canada, that you would pay a pension with respect to the second wife, you would have the first wife and perhaps her children left in a difficult position. So we felt that the only safe way to go is by the law of Canada as regards whom our law recognizes as his wife and children. No doubt it leads to difficult cases, which we recognized in the committee, and it is unfortunate that there is not some way of taking care of these cases where there is good faith, where the woman marries thinking she is going through a valid marriage, for, of course, it makes it very difficult. I hope that some way will be found to take care of these real good faith cases without having to enter into the more difficult field of complicated matrimonial relations.


Clarence Gillis: I agree with the parliamentary assistant as to his general premise; but in the Adams case I do not think it is applicable, because, to begin with, Adams' wife deserted him while he was overseas, and when he came back she was in the United States and had secured a divorce. He was a rank and file soldier, and not knowing all the legal machinery of the country he assumed he was single. He secured a licence from the government agency.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Of what province?


Clarence Gillis: Nova Scotia. He went to a church and he was married as legally as he could be. As to his securing a Canadian divorce on the ground that his first wife had deserted him and committed misconduct through her other marriage, the financial obligation enters the picture. He would require money; he would have to serve papers on her in the United States. That was probed
Supply-Veterans Affairs

on several occasions, but financially he could not undertake that obligation, so that the matter slid along. I am not concerned about him; he has gone to the great beyond, but he leaves behind him a woman with whom he lived for twenty-six years.


Thomas Vincent Grant: Any children?


Clarence Gillis: No.


Thomas Vincent Grant: Well, then, she is all right.


Clarence Gillis: She is at an age to-day when she is something like ourselves, ornamental but not very useful. I am now making this suggestion to the minister, and perhaps this is the only case of the kind in Canada. I am reasonably sure that if the minister, the parliamentary assistant and the pension chairman got their heads together they could devise ways and means of granting a pension to this widow. I agree with the hon. member for Rosthern that you have to protect the people of the country against wholesale divorces and so on, but there is absolutely no doubt that there are extenuating circumstances in this case. Even if the minister would pass an order in council quietly-


An hon. MEMBER:: Can that be done?


Clarence Gillis: Even if he did that, and said that in cases such as the Adams case, taking that as a base-and I am giving the chairman of the commission administrative latitude if certain circumstances prevail-a pension will be granted, it would fix the thing up. I shall be keeping in touch with this widow because I certainly hope that the minister will do as I suggest.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Under what item does the vote come for the South African veterans?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Under war veterans allowances.


George Hugh Castleden: To come back to item 461, pensions in connection with the North West rebellion, I was interested in the minister's remarks with regard to the beneficent way in which the government had treated these chaps.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I did not use that word.


George Hugh Castleden: Well, the minister implied that he had been very generous, that the department had spent a great deal of money. One of these chaps happens to live in my own town. I know him quite well, and for some time I followed the discussion with regard to the efforts that have been made by those concerned to get a pension for their service in the North West rebellion. That is

exactly sixty-one years ago, and most of these chaps are over the age limit. They are now, to use the expression of my hon. friend the member for Cape Breton South, merely ornamental.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I was not here then.


George Hugh Castleden: But the minister was here later on, administering the department when he could give a pension.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And I got it for them.


George Hugh Castleden: When did it go
through?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Two years ago.


George Hugh Castleden: I remember the last day of the session when the minister rose in his place and announced with great gusto the fact that at last a regulation had been passed granting these noble veterans of 1885 a splendid pension to take care of them for the rest of their days.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I never used the words "splendid pension". That is only C.C.F. exaggeration.


George Hugh Castleden: On arriving back home, I met this chap and I said to him, "You will be pleased to know that the Liberal government has seen fit to grant you people a pension for your services in 1885". He replied, "You know, they have been very good to me because I got that long envelope containing an intimation that they were going to give me a pension for my services in 1885; but, strange to say, I also received notification at the same time that my old age pension was being cut off because I was getting money from another source".


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Who cut it off-the provincial government, the C.C.F.?


George Hugh Castleden: The minister's own regulations did. If it is intended that these men shall get some special benefit, if the minister wishes to try to help them, he can pass regulations, or have them passed, to provide that the miserable pittance they receive shall not be assessable as income.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I interrupt
without being unkind? The treatment they have received is exactly the same as that received by the 24,000 battle veterans of the first great war.


George Hugh Castleden: But they were not getting old age pensions.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They are all treated in the same way.

Supply-Veterans Affairs


George Hugh Castleden: Yes, but the others did not fall within the category of old age pensioners. It meant absolutely nothing to these men.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is no difference in treatment.


George Hugh Castleden: It is of no use at all to these men. The veteran of the first great war is not receiving an old age pension. This man at one time was receiving an old! age pension and then is given a pension in recognition of services rendered in 18S5, but if he accepts the one he has to do without the other.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is $30 a month now, whereas before it was $20.


Walter Adam Tucker: It is wrong to say that there is no advantage under the war veterans allowances. If he is a married man and even if his wife is not over 70 years of age, under this legislation he can get $730. He is permitted to have an income above that of $250, without affecting the allowance-


George Hugh Castleden: $730?


Walter Adam Tucker: Yes, and he he can get an income of $250 above that without affecting the allowance. He is permitted casual earnings of $125, an income from investments of $25 a year, and he is permitted to own a home worth $4,000, without affecting the war veterans allowance. That is much better than old age pension, as the hon. member knows, and when he says it is not an advantage he is saying something that is not correct.


George Hugh Castleden: It made no difference to this man.


Walter Adam Tucker: In the case of a single man, he can get $365 a year. He is permitted to have earnings of $125 above that, casual earnings of $125; he is permitted to have $25 a year from investments and a home worth $4,000.


George Hugh Castleden: If he can earn it at the age of eighty-one.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am saying that it is better than an old age pension and many people prefer to have the allowance rather than the old age pension. I do not think, therefore, that it can be said that the people who worked to get this advantage-and they knew what the terms were under which it would be paid-did not get something of an advantage, to the northwest field force veteran. I do not think it is fair to say that nothing was obtained1 for them.


George Hugh Castleden: It certainly is wrong for the minister to claim that it was a piece of generosity. In this case it meant nothing.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Give us the concrete details of that case.


George Hugh Castleden: I shall be glad to give it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Give it to the committee now.


George Hugh Castleden: The name is Caldwell.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not want the name. Give the committee the particulars of the allowances which that man had before and the allowance he received as a result of what the house did two years ago. I want the amount right now, because it is not true.


George Hugh Castleden: I gave you the name.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not want the name but I do want the particulars. If my hon. friend makes a statement on the floor of the house, that we did not increase that man's allowances, I want to know what he was receiving previously under the old age pension, which was cancelled, and what he received through the act of this parliament.


George Hugh Castleden: I shall be glad to give it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I want it now.


George Hugh Castleden: You have the case.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No; I want it now.


Clarence Gillis: I think I understand the hon. member for Yorkton quite well. It works the same in all these cases.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Clarence Gillis: Listen-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


An hon. MEMBER:: A new leader.


Clarence Gillis: Not at all.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: I thought you were working for the widows.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. The hon. member for Cape Breton South has the floor.


Clarence Gillis: This sounds like the industrial relations committee where, the moment you say something that may settle the strike, they all begin to ishout about it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Give us the facts.


Clarence Gillis: The minister knows that what was given the North West rebellion people was a pension of $10 a month. These fellows are old; you have to be old to get the old age pension. He receives in any province in Canada $20 a month old age pension after he passes seventy years of age. This is the condi-
Supply-Veterans Affairs

tion of these old heroes who stormed lake Superior, and I am giving the government credit for what it has done, because the matter was neglected for sixty years under similar governments. The present government decided to do something about the matter, and granted a pension of $30 a month to the old veterans of the North West rebellion. To the committee which came to that decision I give full credit; but immediately that happened the provincial government cut off the $20 a month old age pension, so that these old gentlemen benefited to the extent of $10 a month. That is the case in every province of Canada. It not only applies to pensioners of that class; it applies also to those under war veterans allowances, and it applied to the soldier in the service who made an assignment to his old father and mother. Immediately the assignment was made, the $20 was cut off.
Mr. GRANT; No.


Clarence Gillis: Oh, yes. I could give you case after case of that, where the minute the pension was granted by the federal government for a son who was killed overseas, the old age pension was discontinued. That is something we shall have to iron out in this house some time.


Thomas Vincent Grant: But not in the case of an assignment. It may be so in the case of a pension.


Clarence Gillis: It was done in connection with pay and allowances, too, all over the shop. I had case after case; some I straightened out and some I could not. That is the long and short of the story. Through this government we granted them $30 a month; the provincial governments cut off $20, and they benefited to the extent of $10. I hope the veterans affairs committee will reconvene next session so that we may straighten out the provincial government in that regard.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous grants-
462. Last post fund, $100,000.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have just a couple of questions in connection with this last post fund. Does the government accept any responsibility for the supervision of this fund? If so, does it appoint any of the officers? If so, what portion of this amount is spent in salaries?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We contribute $8,500 toward the cost of administration, and all the accounts are audited by the auditor general of Canada.


John Ritchie MacNicol: How much is allowed in payment of a funeral?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: 


John Ritchie MacNicol: And that covers what?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: During the last two years we have had a reorganization of the burial services in Canada. We have a director of military cemeteries who works together with the last post fund, the Canadian Legion and other military organizations. We are trying to assure sufficient accommodation. Last year we took over Beechwood cemetery here in Ottawa, and all across Canada we are trying to see that the accommodation is adequate and to make burials as reasonable as possible in regard to cost for those whose relatives are not possessed of substantial means.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
464. Administration of soldier settlement, British family settlement, general land settlement and Veterans' Land Act, including engineering and other investigational planning and subdivision expenses that do not add tangible value to real property, $5,443,400.
Mr. LENNARD:: I should like to refer briefly to a condition which exists in the Hamilton area and, I believe, is general throughout Ontario, in connection with the transfer of properties. I understand that all the legal work in connection with the transfer of property is being done by one very learned gentleman, Mr. W. C. Thomson, K.C., of Toronto, and that a serious bottleneck exists at the moment, with the result that veterans have to wait for months before they get the transfer of these properties. Recently an article appeared in the Hamilton Spectator relating to this matter, and I should like to read part of it:
The bottleneck has become so choked that representations have been made to officials at Ottawa protesting "extended delays" . . .
Further on it says:
Registry office here is admitted to be working long hours at top speed to get these abstracts out so that the transfers may be completed. However, the criticism is that local solicitors could make the searches, establish clear title to a property, and save the veteran weeks or even months of time in settling on his land.
And finally the article states:
Local lawyers were unanimous that the fault was not in Hamilton but at Toronto or officialdom at Ottawa.
Wilfred R. Hobson. K.C., said the delays were "becoming worse." Arthur Treleaven said that he had written three letters to the Toronto office since June 7, and had not received an answer.
In conclusion, may I say that this criticism is not in any sense political, because the first named learned gentleman is a Conservative, while the last named is a member of an honoured Liberal family in the city of Hamilton.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend is not the first to bring this matter to my attention.

Supply-Veterans Affairs
I think at least twenty of my colleagues, supporters of the government, have made exactly the same representations. There are no reflections whatsoever upon the ability or integrity of Mr. Thompson, the criticisms are that there is too much centralization and occasionally there may be some delay in the clearing of titles at local centres. The suggestion has been made that local legal gentlemen should clear these titles, and the matter is now receiving active consideration.


Walter Adam Tucker: On August 1 last I promised the leader of the opposition that I would give him exact information with regard to the cost of the small holdings, and I think I should carry out that undertaking though the hon. gentleman is not in the house at the moment. The questions were: (a) how many of these houses will cost the state less than $6,000; (b) how many will cost the state more than $6,000; (c) what is the estimated average excess cost of the whole project over S6.000 each?
Contracts were let for the construction of a total of 2,706 houses on subdivision projects across the dominion, 2,440 on a cost plus fixed fee per unit basis and 266 on a firm bid per unit basis. To date a total of 1,175 houses have come under final review by the committee composed of the deputy minister of veterans affairs and the director under the Veterans' Land Act. Of the houses, 609 cost the state less than $6,000; the average cost of construction was $5,574. The other 566 houses cost the state more than $6,000; the average cost of construction was $6,394. The average net cost of the total unit inclusive of house, land and all services is $7,058.
With the permission of the committee, I should like to place on record a summarized statement of the net cost to the state of these 1,175 small holding units. They represent forty separate projects in six provinces. It is not considered practicable to give the estimated net cost of the remainder of the houses under construction with the desired degree of accuracy. The remainder of 1,531 houses are in various stages of construction, with many near completion. It is estimated that all houses will have been completed by October 31 of this year. On completion of the remainder of these projects it will be possible to place on record a table similar to that which I am now filing. The statement I wish to have permission to place on record gives an exact statement of the various projects, the number that cost under $6,000 and the cost of same, the number that cost over $6,000 and the cost of same, so that all this information may be available to members of the committee.
(Table appears on following page.)
Something has been said about the rental, with the idea that these houses were costing the veterans far more than perhaps they should. I might give the committee some information on that, for such use as they may wish to make of it. Where the adjusted cost to the director is $4,500, after the veteran has paid his ten per cent and gets his conditional write-off, the monthly rate he has to pay for twenty-five years in order to retire that contract is $14.92. If the adjusted cost to the director is $5,000, after the veteran gets his conditional write-off and pays his ten per cent his monthly cost is $16.58. If the suggested cost to the director is $5,500, that house will cost $18.24 to the veteran. If the cost is $6,000, the cost to the veteran, after he has made his down payment, is $19.90. If it is $6,500, in the event he pays $600 down, and when he gets his additional write-off, the amount he must pay for a $6,500 house is $22.39. If it is a $7,000 house he pays $600 down, and then pays a monthly amount of $24.88. If it a $7,500 house he pays $600 down, again, and his monthly payment is $27.57.
Those are figures which I believe will meet any apprehension on the part of hon. members that veterans are being asked to make payments which are out of line with rental payments in connection with other projects throughout Canada.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to
ask some questions. But before asking the first one, I want to stick my neck out on a limb, and perhaps I have been doing it for a long time-


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is out now.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The hon. member for Kamloops is young yet both in years and in experience. He has a great deal of ability behind him-but it is still a long way behind him. I have heard all this discussion in connection with what we can or cannot do for the war veterans of the Riel rebellion, and a few other rebellions which happened slightly before my time. We cannot do very much for them. But I am curious about this item of $5,000 for Colonel John T. Thompson. I believe that Colonel Thompson is the man who made inquiries about carpets, and other matters of economy. If I am wrong I would like to be corrected.
Through you, Mr. Chairman, and through the minister-and just bide your time-I want to know if this $5,000 vote, the item which the parliamentary assistant endeavoured to explain-


Thomas Vincent Grant: An annuity.

Total number projects	Total number units	Province	Projects approved by the Committee	Number of projects	Number of units	Houses only	Total unit	Under $6,000	Over $6,000	Total cost houses	Total cost in excess of $6,000 per house	Total cost *See note	Total cost in excess of $6,000 per unitNumber	Cost	Number	Cost	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.32	576	British Columbia	6	172	70	390,318 25	102	674,178 14	1,064,496 39	32 496 39	1,235,973 58	203,973 586	280	Alberta	5	80	Saskatchewan	3	65	65	343,834 00	343,834 00	6	240	1	90	45	245,205 00	45	284,706 00	50	1,161	17	613	315	1,789,205 48	298	1,816,157 70	3,605,363 18	6	187	Quebec	5	170	63	351,139 21	107	757,126 92	1,108,266 13	88,266 13	1,426,197 70	406,197 7021	182	Maritimes	8	65	51	275,070 56	14	86,932 72	362,003 28	405,980 54	15,980 54126	2,706	40	1,175	609	3,394,772 50	566	3,619,101 48	7,013,873 98	120,762 52	8,293,745 65	1,243,745 65
This cost includes cost of house, land, water and sewer services, temporary heating, transportation and travel time of labour, drainage, driveways, roads, landscaping, and all other costs to the director.

o
2
o
Ui
Average costs as per above statement:
House only	
$	5,969	25Total unit	
$	7,058	51Average cost of those under	$6,000.00	(houses only)	
$	5,574	34Average cost of those over	$6,000.00 (houses only)	
$	6,394	17fAverage excess per house over $6,000.00	
213 36tNumber of houses over $6,000.00	
566Total excess over $6,000.00 (on 1,175 houses)	
$120,762 52
Average excess per house over $6,000 00 506)120,762.52 (213.36
Supply-Veterans Affairs

Supply-Veterans Affairs
Mr. C tUICKSHANK: I want to know whether tiis annuity of $5,000 can be paid to one individual, when we can only pay our veterans $30 a month as a war veterans allowance. That will hold Prince Edward Island for a little while!


Thomas Vincent Grant: I was trying to help you out.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I do not need any help in this case. I am one who believes that credit has not been given as it should have been to the minister who comes from my province, and happens to be Minister of Veterans Affairs, for what he has done for the veterans of Canada. I am prepared to go back before my legion and any other legion and give that credit. But I am asking the minister at the same time to explain that $5,000 annuity to one Colonel Thompson. That is my first question.
My second question-and I will have to put these glasses on; I just paid $17 for them- affects soldier settlers. As I understand it, under the new act which was brought down, a man living in an outlying district is not eligible under the Veterans' Land Act for a house or home. I have an instance in Burnaby, in my own province, although I do not live in that area. I am giving the minister's officials plenty of time to look this up, Mr. Chairman, because I think they cannot answer it. But, as I understand the situation, a veteran in an area such as Burnaby-and I am instancing Burnaby or North Vancouver-is not eligible for a home, and I want to know why he is not.
The second question I wish to ask-


Thomas Vincent Grant: The third.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The third question -I am being helped a lot, and again I am taking plenty of time-is as to why homes now erected in Fraser Valley are not available for sale to veterans, and why veterans are not allowed to buy Japanese farms, homes or individual holdings in Fraser Valley, despite the fact that in the veterans affairs committee I was assured that these homes were available and would be made available for immediate sale to veterans.
I am definitely saying through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, that these Japanese farms in Fraser Valley are not being made available. These former Japanese homes in Fraser Valley are not being made available for sale. The veterans in my constituency do not know where they stand to-day in so far as purchasing homes is concerned, either those built under this veterans scheme or old homes and old farms taken over from the Japanese. I also wish to point out through you, Mr. Chairman, that no price has yet been set on
veterans homes in Fraser Valley, despite the fact that veterans were assured that these homes would not cost more than $4,800.
Again I would praise the minister and his assistant for the work they have done. But this government has made a mistake or has permitted a mistake to be made in connection with the cost of these homes. We must see that the veterans get them at a cost of $4,800, at which they expected to get them. That price was advertised in every paper in British Columbia. The statement was made on every platform in British Columbia in the last election-including the statement by the member for Fraser Valley-that these homes would be available at $4,800. The last figure I could get was anywhere from $5,800 to $6,400. When I ask for the actual cost I am told I can get an order for return-which will probably be returnable about six months or a year from now. That is not good enough, because neither the minister nor I might be here six months or a year from now, if they happen to have a by-election. I hope I shall be here.
I want to know and the veterans in my riding want to know when these homes will be available and what the actual cost will be. I was told that one reason the cost in British Columbia was higher was that we believe in paying reasonably decent wages in our province. I also asked at that time why lumber should cost more at Haney, where lumber is produced than it costs at Edmonton. I asked why cement should cost more in Fraser Valley, when it is produced in British Columbia, than it costs in Edmonton, Ottawa or elsewhere.
The minister has a lot of questions to answer; if he cannot answer them all immediately I hope he will keep a record of them. Perhaps he would answer by starting with Colonel Thompson and then work down the list. But I would ask particularly, if the minister has not sufficient staff to appraise these various homes and farm and houses, why he does not employ a greater staff in order that veterans from this war in Fraser Valley may acquire these homes and farms, settle on them, and become citizens of that part of Canada.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend, as usual, has asked a most intriguing series of questions. In the first place, in regard to properties in Fraser Valley, we had a report yesterday that we expect within the next ten days to have a sale price established for all the homes which have been constructed in Fraser Valley.
Next, with reference to Japanese homes, ninety former Japanese properties have been already sold to veterans and the remainder will be made available as quickly as possible.
Supply-Veterans Affairs

Next, with regard to Coloned John Thompson, he was chairman of the Canadian pension commission; when he retired, he was not entitled to superannuation allowance, and an amount was placed in the estimates, I believe of $5,000.
Then the hon. member asked about the Soldier Settlement Act. It is expected that that situation will be met in accordance with the wishes of my hon. friend.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I thank the minister for his answers. After six months of endeavour, I am hoping to go home next week and be able to tell the settlers in my riding that at last I have got a partial answer from the department. There are some 500 Japanese farms-


Mr. SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: Former Japanese farms.


George Alexander Cruickshank: And they will
always be former Japanese farms. The minister now says that ninety have been sold. I want to know, when veterans of Fraser Valley and other parts of Canada are desiring to acquire these former Japanese homes, why only ninety have been made available for sale. I want definite assurance from the minister that the remainder of approximately 500 farms will be made available immediately.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The greatest demand for these farms has been from veterans with no overseas service, and it is the considered policy of the department to give preference to those who have been overseas.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am not quarrelling with the minister's statement because I feel that overseas veterans should have the preference, but there are more than- 500 farms in my district, and I should like to know how long the limitations will remain and when these farms will be made available for veteran volunteers, not zombies but men with service in Canada?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is a submission now before the minister in regard to that matter.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: I should like to say a few words with reference to the policy of administering the Veterans' Land Act. I brought this question up some time ago and it was partly discussed in the veterans committee. I am not bringing up this matter before the committee for the purpose of criticizing the government. The only motive I have in discussing this matter of veterans housing is to see that the veterans for whom I am speaking are given a square deal.
When this question first came up, the veterans in Calgary formed an association. Every

one of the veterans for whom I am speaking has had overseas sendee. When they first met there was a lengthy discussion as to the procedure that should be followed in order to get the necessary repairs and adjustments made to their property. It was suggested to them by me that as little publicity as possible be given to this matter and that every available effort be madie to go through the ordinary and proper channels to get the adjustments that were needed. The veterans were agreeable in that respect and they acted accordingly.
They interviewed everyone connected with the Veterans' Land Act in Calgary, and I think in Edmonton, but, I understand, with no results. Then, when the house opened I brought up the	question here. The minister was
acquainted with this problem before I brought it to the attention of the house. These men have done everything to have these things adjusted in the channels that rvere available to them before the matter was brought up here.
I am at a loss to know why the minister has seemed to be so hostile toward these adjustments. I can assure him that in regard to these houses I have never said anything that was not true. I have never exaggerated; in fact I hasten to say that I have never given as bad a picture as I might have had I gone into the matter more in detail. The question was brought up before the veterans affairs committee. Whether that committee could have gone into the study of the matter at greater length, I do not know because I was not a member of the committee. I should like to take this opportunity of referring to the proceedings of that committee for Monday, June 3, 1946. Mr. Murchison was the witness before the committee at that time, and he has this to say, as reported on page 769:
I can say frankly to this committee that with few exceptions the reaction of the public and veterans to this programme has been good, but there are a few exceptions which illustrate a lack of understanding of the difficulties of home construction at the present time, in some places a decided lack of appreciation of what the administration is trying to do and a tendency here and there to unfairly criticize which, to say the least, does not encourage very much expansion of building. I suggest to this committee there are plenty of places in Canada where our efforts thus far are fully appreciated and where there is still ample demand to fully absorb all the materials available for new construction. We have fortunately only a few samples of criticism of the type I referred to. Some of it developed in Calgary.
That was not answering my charge. I contend that on no occasion has Mr. Murchison ever given one instance where the things that I said in this house were not true. In

Supply-Veterans Affairs
fact, in my opinion Mr. Murchison did not have the information or, if he did, he did not reveal it to the committee. As I pointed out in the beginning, I have nothing to gain by this. I am not even seeking votes. It is not even in my constituency. The only thing I am concerned about is to see that proper treatment is meted out to these veterans who have served their country so well. Surely that is not asking too much. When Mr. Murchison makes this remark, "Where there is still ample demand to fully absorb all the materials available for new construction," he is threatening every veteran not to dare to criticize this policy, no matter what type of house he gets. I take the strongest possible objection to such a threat made against our returned men by any departmental official. Surely that is not the intention of the department. I am quite safe in saying-I hope I am-that the Minister of Veterans Affairs does not countenance and will not allow such a threat to be made to silence the veteran who might criticize the type of house he was getting. I think it was most unbecoming any man to make a threat of that kind. Mr. Murchison went on to say:
We have fortunately only a few samples of criticism of the type I referred to. Some of it developed in Calgary.
He was referring to statements made by me in the house in regard to the Calgary development. He went on:
I am glad that Mr. Harkness is here because it is in his constituency. It was not Mr. Harkness that spearheaded this criticism of what has been done there. . . .
I want to exonerate the hon. member for Calgary East from any criticism that I have made in the house in this regard. I take full responsibility for any statement that I have made. It was not in my constituency, and therefore I have nothing to gain by it personally. I have no votes to solicit. I have no other motive than to see that these veterans are given that which is their due. Mr. Murchison endeavoured to place on the record a statement. He said:
We have voluntary statements from some of the veterans concerned such as this. . . .
Then he went on to read a statement, but he did not give the name of the person. I think that was not intentional because he readily sent me a copy when I telephoned him for it. I will read the copy. The only difference is in the salutation and the complimentary close. It is dated March 30, 1946, and the address is 605-25th Ave. N.E., Calgary, Alberta. This is how it starts:
To whom it may concern-
May I suggest that that reads more like a circular than a personal letter.
To whom it may concern:
Having read the report in the Herald, March 29, in which Mr. Johnston says that our homes are falling apart, I would like to state that no such condition exists in my home. I am quite satisfied with the construction of my home throughout.	,
When looking for a home last fall I examined quite a few houses in various stages of construction, also some completed homes. In my estimation, the V.L.A. houses were a good deal better than any I had seen.
In these houses there are a few slight mistakes which are being rectified-
Notice the contradiction.
-and when they are properly finished I am quite sure I will have a home comparable to any in the city.
Previous to the war I was employed by the A. B. Cushing Company, of this city, and while there I served my apprenticeship as a carpenter.
Yours truly,
(Signed) D. Downie.
Having read that, I want to refer you, Mr. Chairman, to a letter that I received from the veterans committee which was sent to me by the chairman. It is dated April 4. This was after I had made my statement in the house to which the Minister of Veterans Affairs took great exception. The letter reads:
C. E. Johnston,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Johnston:
On Wednesday evening, April 3, 1946, a meeting of the veterans' group of Tuxedo Park small holdings, was held in the home of Mr. Don Sutherland. We wish to extend our sincere thanks to you for your efforts on our behalf.
There were 16 veterans present and it was unanimously decided to notify you of our complete and entire agreement with your remarks as quoted in Hansard.
I pause here to say that I intend to read to this committee the names of the persons who were present at that meeting where the decision was unanimous. The letter goes on:
We firmly believe-
That is, all the veterans present.
-that a first-class finish could have been made in the first place as cheaply or cheaper than w'as done plus cost of repairs.
The repairs promised us by V.L.A. have now been started, and V.L.A. promised-
They were mostly promises.
-these repairs will be finished to our entire satisfaction. There are quite a number of trivial inspections-
Note that.
-taking place at the moment but these inspections are all carried on during day time. It is suggested by the group that an inspection be carried on during the evening when the men are home. We can then show that our complaints are justified.
Supply-Veterans Affairs

I would have thought that when an inspector went around to investigate these complaints he would make his inspection when the man of the house was at home. But definitely the inspectors did not want to find him home and they did not go to make their inspections at the time the veteran would be home. The letter goes on:
The V.L.A. has approached several owners.
These were the voluntary statements to which Mr. Murchison referred and addressed, " To whom it may concern."


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What was the date of that letter? ..


Charles Edward Johnston: April 4. It goes on:
The Y.L.A. has apprpached several owners, seven in number, within the last few days. They requested letters'

This was not a case of letters being written voluntarily.	.
-be written concerning our feelings about the homes, and the progress being made in the rectification of the previously lodged complaints. These letters in reply-
Note this. These letters, "in reply" were by veterans who were present at that meeting.
These letters, "in reply", stated

I draw particular attention to this:
-complete accordance with your statements and also the progress being made by V.L.A. in repairing the houses.
That bears out everything I have said. But so far we have not had produced those letters which were solicited by the Y.L.A. It goes on:
They also stated satisfaction will ultimately come about in most cases when these repairs have been made. This, however, does not make restitution to those of us who have had to spend considerable money personally to repair poor workmanship.
Kindest regards from all of us and again assuring you of our complete cooperation.
Yours,
H. S. Moore, (committee member).
P.S. Attached is list of veterans who attended meeting.
Then follows a list of the names, and the man's name is here whose letter was put on the report of the committee. He fully accepts my statements made in the house. The names are:
C. G-. Ingram, 448 25th avenue N.E.
C.	Jesson, 441 27th avenue N.E.
W. A. Dich, 445 27th avenue N.E.
R. T. Carlson, 606 25th avenue N.E.
E. Snyden, 443 25th avenue N.E.
R. J. Arkley, 447 25th avenue N.E.
D.	Murdoch, 630 25th avenue N.E.
E.	S. Dunn, 626 25tli avenue N.E.
G. M. Huget. 425 27th avenue N.E.
D.	Downie, 605 25th avenue N.E.

That is the man who signed the letter quoted by Mr. Murchison. I am referring particularly to his name, because in the next list of names which I intend to read his name is missing:
D. Sutherland, 444 25th avenue N.E.
H. S. Moore, 416 25th avenue N.E.
R. Derbyshire. 539 25th avenue N.E.
D.	Moss 535 25th avenue N.E.
E.	K. Elton, 419 27th avenue N.E.
D. Dahl, 602 25th avenue N.E.
In most of these cases, Mr. Chairman, where some are, as I say, fairly satisfied, they have spent considerable money out of their own pockets to make adjustments in these houses which, as indicated in the letter, should have been done by the contractors in the first place.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to read to you the next submission which was made to the committee by Mr. Murchison; that is on page 770. He says:
Here is a statement by a responsible member of our advisory committee in Calgary.
Again, Mr. Murchison does not give the name of the person, and I do not think that was done intentionally, either, because he readily sent me the copy of the letter when I asked him for it. This was the letter; I will read from the copy which I have received, dated at 507 Grain Exchange building, Calgary, Alberta, March 30, 1946-incidentally, they were both written the same day-addressed to Mr. A. Findlater, regional supervisor, Veterans' Land Act, Calgary, Alberta, It states:
[DOT]-re houses built for veterans under Veterans' Land Act in Tuxedo Park, Calgary.
On the afternoon of March 29 I inspected a number of houses that had been sold to veterans, and also interviewed a number of the occupants. Every one of the houses I examined-
Notice that-"every one".
-I found have been substantially built, i.e., basement walls-
I want you to notice this particularly:

are quite sufficient to carry the houses erected thereon, and the sills and joists are well put in; heavy enough that there is no danger of the building sagging. In some cases-
It is marvellous how some people can make an emphatic statement and then contradict it in the next few lines.
In some cases the material used in the construction is not all No. 1 and apparently had not been properly seasoned.
Did I not make that statement? And did anybody before the committee ever contradict it? No, certainly not. And here this man confirms it.
As a result in some places it has shrunk, but not to any alarming extent. In view of the scarcity of material I consider that these dwellings have been as well constructed as could be reasonably expected. The workmanship in all cases-

Supply-Veterans Affairs
Notice this:
-could not be considered as first class.
That is what I emphasized when I was speaking here. The work was far from being first-class workmanship, and the results are showing up now.
But owing to the scarcity of skilled tradesmen, I believe it would be practically impossible to have a dwelling built within a reasonable time that would not show some slight defects such as casings around the doors and windows not being properly fitted.
"Slight defects!" Can you tell me it is a slight defect when the rain will blow right through the doors and windows?


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: Terrible!


Charles Edward Johnston: He goes on:
The occupants whom I interviewed are well satisfied with their homes and while mentioning some slight defects here and there in the workmanship, stated that they are causing them no inconvenience but suggesting in some cases that a little later, when material and skilled tradesmen can be secured to better advantage than at present, some slight adjustments could be made.


Walter Adam Tucker: What is the matter with that?


Charles Edward Johnston: The hon. member ought to come and live in these houses and find out. The writer goes on:
After inspecting the properties and interviewing the occupants I consider that there is absolutely no foundation for the reports that these houses were badly constructed and the occupants very much dissatisfied.
Yours truly,
W. D. Mackay,
Member of the regional advisory committee.
Below he says:
I hereby certify that the above is a true and exact copy of Mr. W. D. Mackay's letter dated 30th March, 1946.
(sgd) A. Findlater,
Regional Supervisor, Veterans' Land Act, Calgary, Alberta.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I am going to leave it at that for the moment, other than to say that this report is so contradictory that nobody could intelligently expect any committee to believe such a statement as that. The writer says, first, that the houses are substantially built. I have pointed out to this committee that in some cases the joists do not even meet over the beam, and any man who calls himself an inspector and would say that that was satisfactorily built does not know much about the matter. Anybody who says that a house is satisfactorily built when the floors are sagging does not know much about his business. Anybody who says that a basement wall is properly built when the water comes right through the wall doesn't know much about what he is saying.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You are "off the beam", anyhow.


Charles Edward Johnston: I may be off the beam; but the minister, like this house, is a little warped; and also the remark has been made that the water is getting in the man's basement. I have already referred to this. Incidentally, the minister, speaking on this matter in the house on July 22, said, Hansard, page 3715:
I want to say that I have abundant evidence-
That is a pretty strong expression, and I suppose the minister would not have used it unless he had.
-from the settlers themselves of their complete satisfaction with these houses.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Hear, hear.


Charles Edward Johnston: The minister went on:
I have an official letter-
This ought to be worth something.
-from the city engineer of Calgary justifying these houses. This evidence disproves in their entirety the remarks made by the hon. member for Bow River.
I then said:
This was never disproved in the committee.
I shall be only too pleased to have this discussed and I hope the minister brings his evidence before the committee.
I want to hear that evidence and see whether he can disprove what I have said.


Walter Adam Tucker: It seems to me that the [DOT] hon. member has taken a great deal of time-


John Ritchie MacNicol: Forty minutes.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am going to take some more, too.


Walter Adam Tucker: -to deal with something which, after all, is not nearly as serious as he would make out. On March 28 last, he made his speech in the house. The facts in regard to this matter are really very simple. On account of the housing shortage the officials under the Veterans Land Act permitted a number of veterans to move into some of these houses in Calgary before they were finished and before they were taken over from the contractors, in order to accommodate these veterans. The contractors had not completed their work; the final inspections had not taken place, and the contractors had not been paid in full and have not yet been paid. The settlers moved in in December and January. They drew attention to these defects. As I said, no final inspection has yet been made; there is no suggestion that the houses have been finally taken over, and no suggestion that

Supply-Veterans Affairs

they were in a shape to be finally taken over by the veterans; the veterans were just given shelter during the winter.


Charles Edward Johnston: Exactly.


Walter Adam Tucker: My hon. friend, I suppose, could say that these veterans should be kept on the street until the houses could be finished to the last nail. I wonder if that is what he means. The veiy kind of attack which the hon. member is making is rendering it difficult for our department to get contractors anywhere to be willing to turn over houses until they are finished to the last degree.


Charles Edward Johnston: Nonsense.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am saying, what is a fact, that the uproar which the hon. member has made on account of the houses that were turned over for temporary use of the veterans before they are finished has made other contractors, who are jealous of their reputation, and afraid of being similarly attacked, fearful of turning over houses until they are absolutely finished. That is what the hon. gentleman has accomplished, and that is not imagination; it is fact.
Now to proceed. I do not know whether Mr. Cawthorne, who wrote the following letter, is another member of the advisory committee, but I take it the hon. member is making out that this gentleman in Calgary did not know what he was talking about, that the government made Mr. Cawthorne sign anything he [DOT] was asked to sign, and that my hon. friend is the only one who can give evidence before the house which can be relied on. It is a most amazing reflection for him to make on his fellow citizens of Alberta. I am sure they will be pleased to -hear it. However, this is what Mr. Cawthorne said:
All adjustments needed are of a very minor nature-
And remember, these are houses not yet finished, not yet turned over.


Charles Edward Johnston: Who wrote that letter?


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Cawthorne, justice of the peace. I suppose he is appointed by your government.
All adjustments needed are of a very minor nature and no difficulty is anticipated in having them attended to. These homes are outstanding in external appearance and will certainly be a credit to the community and the veterans who will own them.
The sweeping assertions made by the hon. member are certainly unjustified . . .
I hope the hon. member does not report that gentleman to the premier of Alberta for saying that.


Charles Edward Johnston: I think I will.


Walter Adam Tucker: We would not do that and I do not think you should.


Charles Edward Johnston: On a point of order-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Charles Edward Johnston: I have no objection-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Take your medicine.


An hon. MEMBER:: He can't take it.


Charles Edward Johnston: I have no objection to the minister reading an official report from an engineer-


An hon. MEMBER:: He is not minister yet.


Charles Edward Johnston: -but I want it distinctly understood that when I asked to have reports tabled it was refused me on the ground that they were official. If he reads the reports I demand that the other reports I asked for be tabled.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You will get the whole lot of them.


Charles Edward Johnston: Why did you not give them before?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Because I was debarred by the mles of the house. You will get more than you want.


Walter Adam Tucker: This is a report from the city engineer.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You will be sorry you ever started it.


Charles Edward Johnston: Oh no, I won't.


Walter Adam Tucker: This is from the city engineer of Calgary. I suppose the hon. gentleman knows he is reliable. I hope he would not suggest that this gentleman would write something that was incorrect. He says:
The houses appear to be structurally sound, and from the appearance-
Does my hon. friend suggest that the city engineer of Calgary cannot be relied upon and that only the hon. member, with his superman, X-ray vision can see something that nobody else can see? I knew the hon. member attributed to himself powers and visions that no one else had, but I do not think he would suggest that he can see things which ordinary mortals cannot see. This is what the engineer says:
The houses appear to be structurally sound and from the appearance of the finish the class of workmanship has been average. It is needless to mention that with the difficulty in obtaining material, and with having to use green lumber in some instances, that refitting of doors and windows is unavoidable, that shrinkage of floors cannot be prevented. It appears, however, that where such conditions have existed

Supply-Veterans Affairs
that they have been remedied, that provision has
been made to relay new floors, tighten windows, doors, et cetera, in any found requiring this work . . .
The prices that the houses are being erected for are well within present-day building costs. In fact, I doubt if any private individual could obtain a price on a similar house for a figure within $500 of the costs that these are being erected for. On the whole, these are attractive looking houses, and very -well equipped.


Charles Edward Johnston: What is the cost?


Walter Adam Tucker: That is in the record which I have already tabled. He says:
On the whole, these are attractive looking houses and very well equipped.


Charles Edward Johnston: I have no great objection to that report.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: I would think not.


Walter Adam Tucker: That is the opinion of the city engineer of Calgary, not an official of our department, not a man who would make a statement like that unless he knew it to be correct.


Charles Edward Johnston: He confirms everything I have said.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Do not interrupt; keep your seat.


Walter Adam Tucker: In regard to this contract in Calgary, the contract for these houses was let after public advertisement and competitive tenders, to the lowest bidder, Bennett and White Limited, one of the outstanding construction firms in western Canada. The contract has been administered under supervision of the district construction supervisor appointed by the civil service commission. The construction supervisor in turn supervises the local engineers and inspectors in charge of day-to-day operations, also appointed by the civil service commission.
The houses were built under the trying conditions that confront everyone trying to build in the west. Of course, certain difficulties did appear from time to time and the government is holding the contractor responsible for making them good, and has always done so. The contractor has not been settled with, and will not be settled with until the houses pass inspection and come up to specifications.
In regard to these houses, twenty-two are now finished and occupied; eight are not completely finished yet but are occupied; eight will be ready for occupancy in a week, and twenty-two are ready for flooring and painting, and furnace work is proceeding. We are advised by the chief of the building and supplies division of veterans affairs department that the district construction supervisor reports on 63260-307J
August 14 that all items of work that needed repairs and adjustments, as reported from last February, have now been taken care of, except that in certain houses sufficient fir flooring had not been delivered to replace softwood floors in upstairs rooms. The shortage of fir flooring in western Canada is acute and, according to>
the timber control regulations, they were not supposed to lay hardwood floors in the upstairs. But owing to poor quality of softwood flooring supplied through the timber control office last fall, an exception was made in the case of Calgary.
I would say to the hon. member that I do not suppose he intended this result to happen. I suppose he was called in and it was not explained to him that the houses were not finished, were not supposed to be finished, were not turned over, were not in any way accepted by the government, but the veterans were permitted to move into them before they were finished in order that they might have shelter. I suppose the hon. gentleman acted in good faith; but I say to him in all sincerity that we have had great difficulty in getting contractors throughout Canada, who are jealous of their good reputations, to permit us to have houses occupied by veterans, though it would provide them with shelter, until those houses are finished right up to the last item of the specification; and the effect of the hon. gentleman's charge has been that veterans who could have obtained shelter have been denied it on account of the charges made against this firm of contractors.
As I say, I do not suppose the hon. gentleman intended this result, but the only effect has been what I have stated. The houses have been finished in accordance with the specifications, as they would have been in any event. He does not need to think that anything he has said has contributed to these houses being brought up to specification, because before the contractors would have been paid and the houses accepted they would have had to pass-the final inspection of the government under which all defects would have been corrected. So that the only result of what the hon. gentleman said has been the one I have mentioned. I consider it most unfortunate that he should have made his charge against contractors who did not take the position they might have taken and refuse to turn over these houses until they were absolutely finished. Their only reward has been this attack by the hon. member, and to have their names besmirched from one end of Canada to the other. That: is a very poor reward for those people who* departed from the letter of the contract which they made with the government in order to
Supply-Veterans Affairs

provide shelter- for veterans. As I say, I do not think he intended it in that way, but it is unfortunate.


Charles Edward Johnston: I think the parliamentary
assistant has made out a very weak case for himself.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are the only one who thinks so.


Charles Edward Johnston: Oh, am I? The report of the engineer confirmed everything I said; it does not contain one thing to prove that what I said was wrong. This talk about the reputation of the contractors being at stake is just so much eyewash, because when the people moved into those houses there was nothing left unfinished about them that the contractor could not complete without any inconvenience to those who had moved in. That is the most common thing you ever heard of. I'll bet you there is not one house into which people move to-day with everything absolutely completed before the family moves in. It just isn't done. When they say they cannot build houses under the conditions under which they built these houses without having these defects, I say anyone who makes that statement does not know anything about building. I built a house at the very same time these houses were going up, and I would defy anyone to come and find the rain running into my house, or water running through my basement wall, or the floors shrinking; and I had the same material available to me that was available to them. The only difference was that in every case the government had a priority. They talk now about the floors shrinking. Well, why would the government put spruce flooring into a place, anyway, when it was all green? We are told they could not get fir flooring. Well, I got it, and everybody else around got it. Why could the government not get it? That is just silliness; and if my hon. friend thinks anybody is going to take that into consideration he is wrong.


Walter Adam Tucker: I imagine all these people must be dishonest-according to the hon. gentleman.


Charles Edward Johnston: I agree almost entirely with the engineer's report. I have no criticism of him, because he pointed out quite clearly where the defects were. The parliamentary assistant suggested that the contractors must make good. He must understand that some of these veterans have already spent well over $200 to fix up a house that was new, a house that had been built according to plans and specifications. You cannot tell me that a house has been built according to plans and specifica-

tions and has the defects I have mentioned. Certainly not. Let us see how they lived up to their specifications. Let me read another letter to you, Mr. Chairman. I want you to remember that, according to the parliamentary assistant, the charge I made was unjustified; that I have done a great injustice to these contractors; that otherwise these veterans would not have had these houses. I say to you, sir, that we might better have built one good house and had one veteran well satisfied than build two poor houses and have two veterans dissatisfied. The parliamentary assistant says these people are out of the storm. I do not think they are. The storm goes right through the walls, right through the windows, right through the basement. They might just as well be outside. That is no excuse.


Walter Adam Tucker: Remember that what you say is being taken down by Hansard and will be read all over the place.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is an extremely poor argument for the government to put up. The minister says I want to put this on Hansard. Why did they not take action at first, when these veterans went after them, when they tried by every means at their disposal to get the authorities in Calgary to do something? It was expressly understood at that'first meeting, that nothing would be done except through the proper channels; and I so advised them.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We took action long before you made your flamboyant speech.


Charles Edward Johnston: With your trivial inspections, but they did not take place until afterwards.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is nonsense. You do not know what you are talking about.


Mr. MUTCH:: Do you believe that yourself?


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes, I do.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Let us get on with the work of the house.


Charles Edward Johnston: We shall get on with it, and we shall get on with the position of these veterans, too. Here is another letter sent to me by the committee, dated May 31:
It seems some time since we had the pleasure of communicating with you and the present time seems most appropriate, to give you a short resume of our activities here, and reparations to our houses since you last heard from us.
V.L.A. have had some repairs made-
This was after you started to fix up the places, to make the repairs.

Supply-Veterans Affairs


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Long before you were ever seen over there.


Charles Edward Johnston: It goes on:
-including a little painting and new floors-
Was my charge wrong, when I complained about the floors? They had to go back and put in new floors; and then they said I was wrong.
-put in the upstairs of several two-storey homes. We all have outside water faucets now-
Quite a contribution!
-and a few basement traps have been repaired.
Was I wrong in the statement I made?


Walter Adam Tucker: We inspected all the houses, all over Canada.


Charles Edward Johnston: The letter goes on:
However, there is no sign of sidewalks or eavestroughing and little if any hope of getting these at any date * apropos to our meeting this afternoon at V.L.A. with Mr. Wiber (inspector V.L.A., Edmonton).


Walter Adam Tucker: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Would he suggest that we should not have allowed these veterans into these houses, unfinished as they were, until they were finished? Would he rather have had them kept out? Did we do right in letting them into the shelter of these houses before they were finished, or should we have kept them out until these houses were all completed?


Charles Edward Johnston: Now, now; surely you do not mean a statement like that.


Walter Adam Tucker: Answer the question.


Charles Edward Johnston: If that is the answer to my charges I think it is very poor.


Walter Adam Tucker: Admittedly these houses were not finished, and I am asking: should we have let them be occupied before they were finished, or should we have made the people wait until the houses were completed?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Answer the
question.


Charles Edward Johnston: Certainly I shall answer it. Keep still over there, and I will tell you.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: We have called your bluff; now answer the question.


Charles Edward Johnston: Called my bluff?


Walter Adam Tucker: Answer the question.


Charles Edward Johnston: What was there in the house that was not completed?


Walter Adam Tucker: Answer the question.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am asking you that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: We have had two and a half hours on this. Answer the question.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Let us get on with our work.


William Henry Golding: Order. I must remind' hon. members that the speaker must not be interrupted without his consent.


Charles Edward Johnston: And I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I have not given my consent. In the next paragraph the writer of this letter says:
I shall go into this meeting in a moment as I am sure you are most interested.
On Tuesday last-
Before I continue to read this letter, I want to refer to the question asked by the parliamentary assistant. He wants to know if I would have permitted these people to move in before the houses were finished. I say to him there was nothing unfinished in the houses except minor repairs which in no way affected these people taking possession of them. The floors were laid!; the walls were up; everything was completed except probably the faucet on the outside tap or something like that. Certainly in every other detail they thought they were finished.


Walter Adam Tucker: They had not been accepted, and were not finished according to specifications.


Charles Edward Johnston: Listen, Mr. Chairman; I was in those houses with the inspector and he accepted them. I was in one house when we asked the inspector in regard to the flooring The floor was covered with paper, but he [DOT] accepted it.


Walter Adam Tucker: What was the name of the inspector who inspected these houses?


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Turner.


Walter Adam Tucker: Our instructions are that they were not accepted on behalf of the government.


Charles Edward Johnston: I do not care whether they were accepted on behalf of the government or not; the inspector was there and he accepted them. When I asked him, "Did you inspect the floor with paper over it?" he acknowledged that he dlid, that he had novel seen the floor. He was one of your government inspectors.


Walter Adam Tucker: May I give the hon. member some information? The only man who has a right to accept these houses on behalf of the government, and to say that the contractor has lived up to his specifications, is the chief inspector of the province. And he did not accept these houses.
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Charles Edward Johnston: Who is the chief inspector?


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Wiber is the district construction supervisor.


Charles Edward Johnston: He has been there, and that is one of the difficulties. Now the hon. gentleman says, should we have allowed this man to move in without the house being finished?


An hon. MEMBER:: Whitewash.


Charles Edward Johnston: "Whitewash" is right. Listen to this:
On Tuesday last we suffered a very bad rain and windstorm. The rain came right through outside double windows, then through inside windows and on to floors of the rooms that happened to face northerly direction.


Walter Adam Tucker: Do you suggest the inspector should have accepted that house in that condition? Do you suggest that?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Do you blame us for the rain?


Charles Edward Johnston: These were houses your inspector had inspected and said they were fine-except probably the doors were not right, or the floors were shrinking, or the roof was leaking, or the windows were not right. Outside of that it was a fairly good house! I continue:
Three basements, known to us at the moment, had streams of water running across the basement floors. This water came through cracks in the cement foundation which had been covered from view by cement plaster and were hitherto unknown to us.
That is good workmanship, is it? Did you tell me a minute ago something about reliable contractors who want to save their reputations? I am going to suggest to you and I am telling you that the requirements are not there.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You are probably attacking the finest contractors in Canada.


Charles Edward Johnston: Oh, just a minute; do not get me started on that, because I can go into more detail.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Go ahead; go ahead I


Charles Edward Johnston: And I can assure you they were not appointed by a Social Credit government, either.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is my hon. friend criticizing the Bennett and White people?


Charles Edward Johnston: Certainly, for the workmanship they put into the houses.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Then you are contradicting your own statement as reported in

Hansard, of March 28, when you paid them the finest compliment of any contractor in Canada.


Charles Edward Johnston: Why, you-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on; go on!


George Alexander Cruickshank: Say it.


Charles Edward Johnston: I won't say what I started to.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does my hon. friend deny it?


Charles Edward Johnston: I never made such a statement in my life.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Get me Hansard of March 28; I have a pretty good memory.


Charles Edward Johnston: I might have called them a lot of other things but not that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I will quote you, to your own discomfort, very shortly.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Could this all be true?


William Henry Golding: Order.
iMr. JOHNSTON: And while we are waiting I will quote another paragraph. It says:
Three weeks ago

And these were the houses which should not have been moved into, because they were not properly completed.
Three weeks ago we also suffered a bad windstorm-


George Alexander Cruickshank: We are suffering one to-night; too.


Charles Edward Johnston: which tore off shingles and uprooted others. This condition was reported then and has not been rectified. When this bad storm hit Calgary on Tuesday with heavy rain it is only fate that prevented these roofs from leaking. One house in particular has 14 shingles missing completely.
I suggest again that that is poor workmanship, and that those shingles were not properly nailed. I know a hundred houses built in Calgary at that time, and the shingles never came off. You cannot tell me that the contractors are so careful of their reputation! If they are so careful of it, then there should be a little more precaution and supervision.


Walter Adam Tucker: Will the hon, gentleman just tell me what he is blaming the government for? Does he say we should have accepted these houses, or should not have accepted them? I am at a loss to understand

Supply-Veterans Affairs
the hon. gentleman or what he is complaining about. He says they were not properly built, and the answer is that the government-


William Henry Golding: Order; I must ask the hon. member to keep his seat until-


Walter Adam Tucker: But I am asking a question.


William Henry Golding: -the hon. member who has the floor is through.


Walter Adam Tucker: But I am asking a question of the hon. member.


William Henry Golding: Order.


Walter Adam Tucker: With his consent, of course. Have I your consent to ask the question?


William Henry Golding: Order; it is not in order to interrupt the hon. member unless he gives his consent to it.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am asking if I have his consent.


William Henry Golding: I hope the hon. member will cease these interruptions.


Walter Adam Tucker: Have I consent to ask these questions?


Charles Edward Johnston: Certainly. Go ahead.


Walter Adam Tucker: I should like you to say what your complaint is. You say these houses were not properly finished. We say they were not either, and we have not accepted them yet, and1 have not even to this date settled with the contractor. What is your complaint? Should we have accepted them, or should we not have accepted them? What should the government have done? We did not accept them, and we have not yet accepted them? Do you complain about that?


Charles Edward Johnston: If I have not made
myself clear, then I should get a hammer and use it on somebody's head.


George Alexander Cruickshank: May I ask a
question?


Charles Edward Johnston: No.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I rise to a question
of privilege.


William Henry Golding: Order.


George Alexander Cruickshank: A question of
privilege.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member does not wish to be asked a question.


James Sinclair: I do not blame the contractor for it.
And that is at page 334 of Hansard.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And this is from page 334 of Hansard, where he says:
I do not blame the contractor for it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: On a question of privilege-


William Henry Golding: The hon. member asked permission to ask a question, and the reply was no.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am rising to a question of privilege.


William Henry Golding: It is not a question of privilege at all.


George Alexander Cruickshank: On a question of privilege-


William Henry Golding: What is it?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I have not yet been given an opportunity to ask it.


Charles Edward Johnston: I want to answer the question referred to a minute ago.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I have risen to a question of privilege, and I want to know whether I have the right to go ahead.


Charles Edward Johnston: You have exhausted
your privilege.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am endeavouring to explain my question of privilege. I should like to point out-


William Henry Golding: Will the hon. member for Bow River take his seat for a moment? Now, what is your question of privilege?


George Alexander Cruickshank: This is a statement made in the house by the hon. member for Bow River as it appears at page 332 of Hansard:
I have visited the homes after the families moved in, and I must say that under the national housing scheme the government has done a fairly good job. The material is satisfactory, the workmanship has been well done, and the people are satisfied.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And page 334.
I do not blame the contractor for it.


Charles Edward Johnston: The minister did not
read it all. Where is the reference I made with regard to poor material? Those windows were sent there ploughed out for sash-cord. That is where I said I did not blame the contractor.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You say it is good.
Supply-Veteram Affairs


Charles Edward Johnston: I do not blame the
contractor when the specifications call for it. That was the government's fault. The parliamentary assistant wants to know what I complain about. Certainly anybody should be able to understand why I complain. When the windows were sent down in that condition, and the contractor was instructed to put them in, and if they were put in properly, I would not blame the contractor for it. But I certainly blame the contractor when he puts flooring in groove to groove.


George Alexander Cruickshank: How do you put it in, if you do not put it in groove to groove?


Charles Edward Johnston: I want to read the passage from which the minister chose to quote me. I would have thought the minister would be a little fairer, but I can see he is getting a little nervous and agitated. I quote from page 332 of Hansard as follows:
It has been admitted by the government that under the national housing scheme 27,000 houses have been built and under Wartime Housing, 16,000. These houses have been completed and are occupied. As I said last year, I have no reat complaint to make about the national ousmg scheme.
I am not talking about the national housing scheme. The minister does not distinguish between houses constructed by the reconstruction department and those erected by his department, and there is all the difference in the world.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why?


Charles Edward Johnston: Because one is a house and the other is not.


An hon. MEMBER:: Which is which?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Which is the house, ours or theirs?


Charles Edward Johnston: I continue:
These houses have been completed, and are occupied. As I said last year, I have no great complaint to make about the national housing scheme. I have carefully watched construction from the laying of the foundations to the time the families moved in. I have visited the homes after the families moved in, and I must say that under the national housing scheme the government has done a fairly good job.
But that is not the Veterans Land Act.
The material is satisfactory, the workmanship has been well done, and the people are satisfied. But that was done by private contractors, and the individual was allowed free choice of his own contractor. He was permitted to get the design that he required and to go ahead with his house. The government did not assist him with any gifts.	'
When the minister starts quoting things he should be fair enough and quote the whole contents.
(Mr. Cruickshank.l


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I quoted from a different page.


Charles Edward Johnston: I want to continue with these letters because they are important.


William Henry Golding: I want to appeal to the committee to observe the rules. If we are going to make any progress every hon. member who is speaking ought to have an opportunity to present his case without interruption.


George Alexander Cruickshank: If he has a case.


William Henry Golding: I hope the hon. member will try to abide by the rules.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Let us get on with the work.


Charles Edward Johnston: Thank you for your wise decision. You are always very just. To return to the letter, it reads:
Now to return to our meeting with V.L.A. to-day. This meeting was called to see Mr. Wiber

That is the man we were talking about a moment ago.
-regarding our sidewalks and eavestrougliing. Mr. Wiber wrote to one veteran last week saying we would not be getting these two items as the prices of our homes did not allow for it. Yet it has been understood right along that there was a contingency fund on each house of $250 for this purpose (told us also by Mr. Wiber a few months ago).
I should like to refer to one other paragraph as follows:
At the meeting to-day we were told in so many words, that the repairs to our houses caused by faulty construction, were on a "cost plus" basis, and there was "only a chance", that next year, after final analysis of prices, that we may get sidewalks and eavestroughing. Mr. Wiber would not commit himself in any way in this respect. Some veterans have spent a lot of money on front lawn landscaping, in one instance $200, and this will be badly marked by dripping rain without eavestroughing.
The parliamentary assistant said that these repairs are going to be made. He says that if these windows are leaking, that is not very serious; if the wind blows the rain through on to the hardwood floors, that is not very serious.


Walter Adam Tucker: On a question, of privilege, I never said anything of the sort. The hon, member says that he wishes to be fair, but he has just said that I said-


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


Walter Adam Tucker: On a question of privilege.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. When the Chairman rises I would ask all hon. members to resume their seats. The Chairman will then

Supply-Veterans Affairs
call on the hon. member who has a right to speak. The parliamentary assistant has risen on a question of privilege.


Walter Adam Tucker: My question is this: The hon. member said that I said that it was not serious when windows let the wind blow the rain in. I never said anything of the sort.


Charles Edward Johnston: You have been quoting letters from engineers and others to show that the things I have been saying are not so.


Lionel Chevrier: Why did you accept his statement?


Charles Edward Johnston: Because he has been saying right along that the things I have charged are wrong, that I have been speaking without a knowledge of the facts.


William Ross Macdonald: Speaking about windows, it seems to me that this question has been pretty well aired in the committee. It is not within my power to close off the discussion, but I think the committee would like it to come to an end as soon as possible.


Robert Fair: The hon. member for Bow River is trying to let in a little light; you have let out all the air.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Pull down the blinds.


Charles Edward Johnston: I suppose there has been enough rain going through it to make the parliamentary assistant all wet.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: So are you. .


Charles Edward Johnston: This may be a joke to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and his parliamentary assistant, but it is not a joke to these veterans who have come home from overseas expecting to get something for their money.
Mr. MACKENZIE. On a point of order, both the hon. member for Rosthern and the member for Vancouver Centre have done more for the veterans at all times than-


Charles Edward Johnston: Will you sit down and
listen to a few facts?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Will you allow
veterans to talk about veterans affairs?


Charles Edward Johnston: The veterans do not
think there is much of a joke about this.


George Alexander Cruickshank: There has been plenty of joking.


William Ross Macdonald: I think it would expedite the proceedings of the committee if the hon. member for Bow River were allowed to continue without interruption. I think he will soon complete his remarks.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am afraid the veterans will not think according to the minister.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They have for the last
thirty years.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You would not
know what the veterans are thinking of.


Charles Edward Johnston: It is none of your business; just keep your place.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. It is most improper for one hon. member to tell another hon. member that it is none of his business.


An hon. MEMBER:: Withdraw.


William Ross Macdonald: I am not asking any hon. member to withdraw a statement, but I think if we are to maintain decorum in this committee such statements should not be made. I would ask that the hon. member be permitted to continue without interruption.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I withdraw the
remark. He is not a veteran; I still am.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is none of your business. Do you think you are any better veteran than some who own these houses?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am still a veteran; that is more than you are.


Charles Edward Johnston: Do not get sassy either.
The CHAIRM_AN: I must insist on all hon. members addressing the Chair. We will not make any progress in the committee if hon. members talk directly to one another. We must maintain order and as long as I am Chairman it is my duty to do so.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I apologize.
Through you, I say I am still a veteran and he is not.


Charles Edward Johnston: I will not stoop to the depths that some people stoop to.


James Sinclair: You will not rise to the heights either.


Charles Edward Johnston: I would not have to go very far. I think this matter is too serious for members of this committee to make light of it. These difficulties will have to be ironed out, and I am endeavouring to1 point out these things to the government which has been attempting to disprove the statements I made. I should like to continue quoting from this letter:
Nothing will be done regarding our windows leaking; however, it has been "graciously" granted to repair leaking basements and upturned shingles.
Then another paragraph:
Mr. Findlater (Calgary district V.L.A. supervisor) and Mr. Turner (V.L.A. inspector, Calgary), here are doing what they can for us and their feelings are definitely on our side. It appears as if Mr. Wiber is deducting this "cost

Supply-Veterans Affairs

plus" from our $250 contingency figure and bungalows are paying for the new floors in two-storey houses. He refused to-day to divulge what this $250 was being spent on as he said it wasn t our business.


Mr. LOW:: Who made that statement?


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Wiber, the official government inspector.


Solon Earl Low: And he is reporting to whom?


Charles Edward Johnston: To the chairman of the veterans committee in Calgary.


Solon Earl Low: And you are reading the chairman's letter?


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes. It goes on:
There are several new homes being built in our area at present, by veterans, who chose their own plans and own contractors, through Y.L.A. These homes average $6,000 and this includes hardwood floors, fireplaces, plastered walls, stucco outside, sidewalks, garages and eavestroughing. Every one of these items are absent from our homes and yet the cost is similar.
That is a direct statement from this man.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


Charles Edward Johnston: No, it is not carried. I want to put these facts on the record so that hon. members will know the treatment these veterans are getting.
I have a letter dated Calgary, June 18, 1946, addressed to myself, which shows that it is no small number of veterans who are being treated like this. The letter says:
This meeting was attended by some twenty veterans and I am instructed to pass on to you their unanimous good wishes and continued support in your kind efforts to assist us.
_ May I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that that is all I am endeavouring to do. The letter goes on:
If our good friend Mr. Murchison has any doubt as to the fairness of your statements or to the actual conditions of our complaints, we suggest that rather than sit back in Ottawa and doubt our statements and your own, that he make a visit to Calgary at once.
May I heartily endorse that suggestion. I think it is high time that this government sent out capable and competent inspectors to inspect these houses and see what kind of deal these veterans are getting. The letter goes on:
I am listing the names of the veterans who attended our meeting and certify their correctness and unfailing backing in your efforts to assist us.
Mr. D. Downie is writing a personal letter to you very shortly. Thanking you for your past kindnesses. I
I have never received that letter from Mr. Downie.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Who signed that letter which the hon. member has just read?


Charles Edward Johnston: H. S. Moore.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We have another one from him quite different.


Charles Edward Johnston: I cannot help that. There is a PH. to the letter:
P.S. The following persons attended the meeting on June 16, 1946,
Then follows the list of names which are the same except for one or two additions, and one notable thing is that Mr. Downie was not at that meeting. He was the man who was going to write to me and who wrote to the government the "To whom it may concern" letter. He was absent from this meeting on June 16. I could go on and read similar statements because I have had correspondence from these veterans continuously.


John Horne Blackmore: From where?


Charles Edward Johnston: From the committee of veterans in Calgary. They are all of them home owners. I want to read just one paragraph from a letter dated July 4 and addressed to myself from H. S. Moore:
Last Friday, a fairly heavy rainstorm prevailed for ten minutes and, within five minutes of starting, my basement was swimming with water. I 'phoned Mr. Turner and after a severe tongue lashing, regarding this condition and his failure to repair this fault (along with many others) after being reported to him three weeks ago, he came up to inspect the basement. Saturday morning, Bennett and White people were there with electric hammers, etc., and have now repaired the poorly-poured cement.
I read that to emphasize my suggestion to the minister that samples of the cement should be taken to see whether the specifications were lived up to. The letter goes on:
As was understood at the time, my basement was to be repainted as they found it before work started. This has not been done so far (unless in my absence to-day), and I do not intend making any further payments, including July 1, until the house is repaired properly. I hope I am legally protected in this instance of my refusal to make payment.
May I suggest that if that veteran is not protected he should be. These basement walls, eight inches thick, were supposed to have been built with cement, five bags of cement to the square yard, and the cement walls were supposed to have been tarred on the outside, something that is not done in Calgary in one case in a hundred because it is not necessary. But, as I say, these cellar walls were supposed to have been tarred right down to the basement floor. They were on a cement footing, with a watershed on it, and when water can pour through an eight-inch cement wall that has

Supply-Veterans Affairs
been tarred there is something definitely wrong. That is clear when men had to be sent out there to break the wTall with electric hammers in order to repair it. You cannot tell me that these veterans are getting a square deal under those conditions, and I could quote other things just as bad as that.


Robert Fair: You have proved your case.


Charles Edward Johnston: I intended to speak about the cost of these houses and the way the contracts were let. No contract in the list that was furnished to me in the return has been lived up to. In most cases the contract bid was around 85,000, but in every one of these cases, after the contract w'as let there was an addition which cost around $800. Before a contract is let, specifications are put out and the contractor submits his price thinking that' those are the plans and specifications, but in every one of these cases the plans were changed. That is not a square deal. Mind you, Mr. Chairman, it is in the extras that the contractor makes his money. Surely the government knows that. When a contractor puts in an extra window or anything in addition to the specifications, up goes the cost. That is where he makes his money. I am not blaming the contractor for that, because that is the way the business is carried on. But the government is at fault there. I could speak for another forty minutes on contract prices. In every case a profit of from 8100 to $300 is being made over the price set out. Of course, they say: That price is not the final price. I know that, but I venture to say that it will never be lower than the quoted price and in most cases it will be higher.
As I said when I made my last statement to the house, I estimated that it would cost between $500 and $1,000 to repair these houses. This estimate has been proven correct, and if this House of Commons allows these conditions to prevail and allows twenty-three or twenty-four veterans who are buying these houses to be treated in this way, I say it is a crime to treat in this way veterans who have been overseas. They are entitled to every consideration. The veteran who has fought for this country has every right to fair treatment, just the same as anybody else, and that is all I am asking. I am not looking for glory myself. I do not care if a word of mine on this subject is ever published. But I want these veterans to get a square deal.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Mr. Chairman, a farce is a farce, whether it is in the House of Commons or in the theatre. The main reason for my rising to-night, however, is not a desire to discuss specifically the situation in Calgary, 63260-308J
of which I can have no personal knowledge, but to resent a slur which the previous speaker made on the committee, when he said a few moments ago, I admit with some heat because he has been pretty well steamed up all night, that he had brought this up because the veterans committee had apparently given it no consideration, and by implication he was much more interested and capable than the other sixty members of that committee. We had some fifty-one meetings, a considerable number of which were devoted to the discussion of this particular act under which these houses were built. The information which the hon. gentleman furnished and the information in rebuttal of it was before the committee; and it does not lie in his mouth, I think, as a member of this house to suggest that the members of that committee were not interested in the matter or that they were incapable of forming a judgment on it.
Beyond that, it is regrettable, of course, that in a discussion of this kind there should be so much of personalities and chitchat back and forth. Perhaps I have been to some extent guilty of it. But, as I say, that allegation against the committee I deny on behalf of myself and every member of the committee, and I think the hon. gentleman, when he reads Hansard to-morrow and notes what he has said, will perhaps regret it,


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege, the hon. member who has just spoken says that I was throwing aspersions on the committee which sat on this matter. I did no such thing. I was referring in that one instance to the veterans affairs committee which sat in this house, but I did not say that they did not consider housing; I did say that they did not spend much time on this particular aspect of it. I have here the official report of June 3, No. 26, and not more than one or two pages deal with this particular question. That is what I was referring to, not that the veterans affairs committee as a committee did not deal with the whole housing problem. I was not referring to that at all: I was referring to this particular item.


Mr. KIDD:: I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Veterans Affairs one item, which came to my attention only this morning. It has to do with the priorities and restrictions in connection with the building of veterans homes. These particular homes are being built a mile or two outside the city of Kingston, not entirely under the directions of the minister's department, but by a private syndicate. Some thirty-five or forty homes are being built, and seven or eight veterans are taking advantage of this act.
Supply-Veterans Affairs

They have procured the sites, and in order to progress with the work, particularly the ground work, it is necessary to construct roads and sewers for thirty-five or forty homes. This group of veterans which I mentioned before in the veterans committee want priorities in order to get drain pipe and sewage pipe, which has to be put down first; and the basins are made. If the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply were in his seat at the moment I would point out to him that he is holding up these priorities. To you, Mr. Chairman, I make my appeal that these men want to build these homes privately on the sites they have acquired under this act, and are prepared to go ahead, and I claim that they should not be held up for a few feet of soil pipe and so on. If the minister would have his officials look into the matter I think something could be accomplished.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall be very glad to take the matter up with the chief priority officer at once.


Mr. McIVOR:: I should' like to mention a case which proves that the officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs and the pension board are honest and sincere in their service. When I have placed before them the facts of needy cases, in not one instance have they failed. I will give one example. A farmer about a hundred miles west of Fort William said to me one day, "I hope you treat my boy better than I was treated." I said, "What is the matter with you? You look honest and you look healthy." "Well," he said, "I have not been able to do a decent day's work since I was discharged." And I believed him. I placed the case before the pension board. He was then getting $9 a month pension. Then he was sent to Deer Lodge hospital, near Winnipeg, and was given treatment for nearly a year. They found they could not treat him successfully and they gave him a pension of $60 a month. I think it is only due to our officials that I and those like me who have seen cases of this kind get honest and generous treatment should publicly mention the fact.


James Sinclair: I should like to refer to'a question asked two or three days ago by the hon. member for Vancouver South, and also mentioned to-night by the hon. member for Fraser Valley, concerning small holdings. I was a member of the veterans committee. Most of us thought our job was done when the committee was finished, but a new interpretation of "small holdings" has been brought in, not by the Veterans' Land Act branch or the Department of Veterans Affairs, nor by the veterans affairs committee, but by the Minister of Reconstruc-

tion, and so I think any member of the veterans affairs committee should be quite free to discuss the matter here in the House of Commons.
The first mention of small holdings as far as the soldier is concerned came with this little pamphlet published by the Hon. Ian A. Mackenzie, Minister of Veterans Affairs, sent to all soldiers overseas in 1942. On page 4, in outlining what was to be done for the soldiers when they returned, it is stated in paragraph (b) that "small holding settlements means an urban, semi-rural or rural home of limited acreage located"-this phrase is especially important

"close to an employment opportunity." Then there follow almost two pages of explanation of this, and then one significant thing: "It is important that small holdings settlements referred to in (b) above should not be thought of only"-let me repeat -"only in relation to the larger and more highly industrialized centres of Canada." The rest of the page explains how the veteran who does not want to be a farmer is to be given this added security, if he has industrial employment, of having a home, a victory garden and a bit of land outside high-taxed areas in the city. Then further, in 1944, 1945 and 1946 all of us overseas received these "Back to Civil Life" pamphlets, which explained it still further; and since the war has been over the Veterans' Land Act administration have gone ahead-I think very well- in my own riding, in settling soldiers into these small holdings of an acre, or of half an acre in the vicinity of industrial employment. Now, in speaking of districts in my riding, I do not want to be parochial in my outlook, but fortunately the hon. member for Vancouver South three or four days ago mentioned in the house that, in the Vancouver area, certainly the most suitable places for small holdings were North Vancouver and Burnaby, both in my riding. The hon. member for Fraser Valley said the same thing this evening; and the minister, who is the member for Vancouver Centre, must certainly recognize that the two working-man districts of the Vancouver area are North Vancouver and Burnaby, both with ample land suitable for this purpose. This recent regulation of the Minister of Reconstruction, which was not discussed or approved by the veterans affairs committee, now limits these small holdings to communities of less than five thousand or more than fifteen miles from a metropolitan area, which, to my mind, just throws out of the window the small holdings which were promised to the veteran. A young man having industrial employment in Vancouver formerly

Supply-Veterans Affairs
could take up a small holding in North Vancouver, Coquitlam, Burnaby or where he would have the advantage of low tax and have a victory garden, the suburbs of the town, so that industrial employment would be available to him. But that has been destroyed, not by the Department of Veterans Affairs, but by the Department of Reconstruction in connection with its new housing scheme. This is the proper place for the minister to give me a satisfactory answer, and it will not do for him simply to say, as has been said to the hon. member for Vancouver South and the hon. member for Fraser Valley, that the matter is under consideration. He should tell us why the department is throwing out of the window these promises made to the veterans that those with industrial jobs would have small holdings in adjacent suburbs made available to them.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver North. I wonder if all the members of the committee are familiar with the evolution of the Veterans Land Act. I wrote to the Prime Minister on October 30, 1939, asking for the formation of a committee on demobilization and reestablishment and that was acceded to on November 2, 1939, when the war was very young. We had a committee formed under General McDonald, who has now been called away from us, and the organizing genius of that committee was my deputy minister, Walter Woods. We formed fourteen subcommittees. One subcommittee was to deal with land settlement. We got what we believed were the finest experts from the various departments and called in practical farmers from all across Canada in every provence to advise us, and they devoted eighteen months of study to the subject before making their recommendation. One from Winnipeg was killed in an aeroplane accident at Armstrong, Mr. Grier, just after he had attended one of our meetings.
Although I was not administering soldier settlement at that time, I asked for a parliamentary committee in 1942 to which would be appointed some of our veteran members, mostly farmer veteran members of the house. That committee went carefully into the report, with the guidance of and in consultation with the present director, and we drew up a bill. Although I was not the minister, I made a suggestion that that committee form a department of veterans affairs in Canada, and the committee agreed to that proposal and sent a report to the house, which this house accepted in 1942.
What I am coming to is basically fundamental. The main idea the committee had
in mind at that time was that the Veterans' Land Act should be for the settlement of farms for veterans, while the other features were incidental. The small holdings and commercial fishermen's features were incidental. Perhaps unfortunately, however, these two features became the most popular parts of the legislation and, especially in view of housing conditions in Canada, there arose a tremendous outcry for small holdings and housing, because the terms were very favourable.
At that time, as the committee knows, there were three agencies in connection with housing: finance, wartime housing, and ourselves, the Veterans Land Act, in a small way. We built 2,700 houses last year. Our terms were so much more favourable that a great demand was made that we should go into urban housing. We felt, however, that if we did we were destroying the fundamental principles of the Veterans Land Act because our main purpose is settlement and not housing.
I greatly appreciate the strength of the presentation made by my hon. friend in regard to certain areas with which I am familiar, and I will discuss the matter with my colleague.
* As a matter of fact, it is being discussed now, and I shall do all I can to present the ideas that my hon. friend has expressed.	[DOT]


James Sinclair: I
appreciate the minister's remarks, but he has not answered my question. All he has done is to say that a most careful study was given the subject by himself to begin with; then a committee of experts was appointed, and then the 1942 parliamentary committee on veterans affairs and that then they turned out this booklet which they sent to the troops, from which I will quote the main purpose in view:
Thus the veterans land act is the flexible measure under which

And this is in black face type: not one and subsidiary objectives, but "four main types of establishment are available." The first is farming, and, second, there is the small holding. What I as a veteran, and! a member of the veterans affairs committee, object to strongly is that the minister, having shown this foresight in 1939, the department and its experts having done such a good jo'b in establishing: provisions for small holdings, the veterans affairs committee of 1942 having threshed the matter out and approved these provisions, and the department having presented these promises to the soldiers in booklet form, the soldiers having believed in it, and soldiers-returning over a period of one or two years having been able to take advantage of it, it is then closed off The minister gives no reason: why it was closed off. He simply says, "We are not going into urban settlement". But
Supply-Veterans Affairs

these are not urban districts. Take the almost rural districts of Deep Cove and Lynn Valley, in North Vancouver, where veterans with industrial jobs in Vancouver could live. Will the minister tell the veterans, will he tell the members of this house, why the veterans affairs committee has changed from the policy of allowing soldiers with industrial jobs to get into these districts, not too remote from the city, where there is low taxation and where they can operate a small holding? Why this great departure? The minister should say why the change has been made, not by his department but by the Department of Reconstruction. If he will tell us that, then we shall be able to tell the veterans the reason for the change. But for the minister to tell me in his pleasant manner that the matter is under consideration is not good enough New matters are considered, but changes should be explained. Why was the change made? As a Vancouver member I should like to know just where veterans with small industrial jobs in Vancouver are to settle, if not in North Vancouver and Burnaby.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: All I can say is that I will bring my hon. friend's very able presentation to the attention of my colleague.


James Sinclair: I am like my friend the hon. member for Bow River. All I want is an answer. We had a certain policy and it has now been changed1. It is not a new matter to be studied and considered. It is something which should be explained to [DOT]every veteran member of the house, why the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply and the Central Mortgage Corporation changed the promises made officially to the veterans and the policy under which such an excellent job had been done. I was glad the minister went into detail to tell us how much consideration had been given over a period of years to the setting up of these four main objectives, though one month ago the provisions for small holdings near cities was thrown out of the window.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was not thrown out of the window. I want to be as emphatic as my hon. friend if he wants to be emphatic.


James Sinclair: I do.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is not a change of policy but a development of policy, the result of the coordination of three departments under
the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply_
that is, the department of his own, the Department of Finance and the Department of Veterans Affairs in so far as houses are concerned -leaving complete independence to the Department of Veterans Affairs in its own

affairs. I am taking most sympathetic note of my hon. friend's presentation, and I shall discuss it with the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply at the earliest possible moment.


James Sinclair: May I ask the minister just where veterans working in his own city riding of Vancouver Centre will qualify for small holdings close enough so that they will not bankrupt themselves by transportation back and forth? What districts can they settle in since North Vancouver and Burnaby are not available to them?
iMr. MACKENZIE: I am sympathetic to my hon. friend's remarks. Take Burnaby, which he represents in part. The taxation rate there is tremendously high in certain parts in connection with soldier settlement.


James Sinclair: The minister knows that the district of Burnaby has given to veterans with small holdings a special concession of taxes at $60 an acre, and the district of North Vancouver has also given special concession, the rate set by his department and now the veterans are rewarded by the department throwing this out of the window. I insist on that phrase. It has been thrown out of the window.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I object to that. I have not thrown anything out of the window.


James Sinclair: Then I shall merely say that this combination of the Department of Reconstruction, the Department of Finance and the Department of Veterans Affairs have flung it out the window, and I am very sorry to see that the Department of Veterans Affairs had any part of that.


George Hugh Castleden: I should like to ask the minister who decides what regions are or are not applicable, as to employment opportunity?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The Minister of Reconstruction, after consultation with those who would represent the specific regions.


George Hugh Castleden: Then will there be made available a list of those regions which would be suitable for small holdings?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I see no reason why not.


George Hugh Castleden: Is there such a list?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We have had drawn up under the director, who is present here to-night, a list of regions throughout Canada as far as our programme goes, which is rather modest. We have been asked to build 4,000 units this year out of a total of 80,000 units throughout Canada as between private enterprise and governmental agencies. For four or five years now the director has been select-

Supply-Veterans Affairs
ing areas for small holdings. Unfortunately, or at least I think unfortunately, it has developed into group settlement on a fairly large scale; that is, with houses in great units. My own idea would have been-probably I do not know very much about it-individual settlements and holdings out five, six, eight or ten miles, for those who would have employment opportunities in the cities; but they have developed into groups of settlements adjacent to urban boundaries.


George Hugh Castleden: In view of the minister's answer, then, I hope a list of the areas which are considered suitable for such small h'oldings will be made available to veterans so that they may know what they are doing.
May I take up another matter arising out of my own experience in connection with the efforts of soldiers to get into some of these particular units? I understand that the department now requires them to present the certificate of an employer, stating that the particular veteran is now in permanent employment. What are the regulations in that regard? It seems to me there is too much opportunity here for throwing out the applications, and the boys are feeling considerable resentment about it. A number of boys in a certain area of my constituency are anxious to get settled on small holdings. They make their application. Finally, after a good deal of correspondence some representative goes to them, and the boys now find that one of the requirements is that their employer sign a statement for the department that the particular applicant is now in permanent employment. Is that one of the requirements?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Certainly; that was the basic purpose of the act, and unanimously endorsed by the committee in 1942, that small holdings were ancillary to industrial employment, and would not necessarily be selfsustaining, as against the settlement of farm areas which would be entirely farming settlements.


George Hugh Castleden: But do you require as one of the requisites, in the case of a man wanting to get on a small holding-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not in all cases, but it is done in some cases.


George Hugh Castleden: That is the very point. Why the discrimination; and in which regions do you require such a statement from the employer?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We require a reasonable anticipation of success on the settlement.


George Hugh Castleden: That is agreed, but there must be certain areas-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No; it is not regional at all. It is personal, in regard to certam industrial employment areas.


George Hugh Castleden: Then can we say that in a certain small city in the west you would require that the employer sign a statement that the particular veteran making application for a small holding has employment, and that no veteran will have his application accepted unless he can produce such a statement?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is no complete prohibition anywhere, but we endeavour to ascertain whether there is probable employment in view, and that is for the protection of the settler himself.


George Hugh Castleden: From there where does it go? Who has the final decision? Take an actual case of a man-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The local advisory
committee, of which there is one in almost every community in Canada.


George Hugh Castleden: The advisory committee of the department?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


George Hugh Castleden: What committee is it?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The number on the committee is not definitely stated; there may be three or five or seven. I am told there are now forty-five of these committees in Canada.


George Hugh Castleden: You mean that every area in Canada is covered by some advisory committee?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


George Hugh Castleden: And the applicant has to satisfy that committee?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is it.


George Hugh Castleden: This particular item covers the administration of soldier settlement. Does this have to do with the old soldier settlement administration?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


George Hugh Castleden: Could the minister give us the figures for the last two years, separately, as to the cost of administration of soldier settlement, as nearly as they have it; the number of soldier settlers who have been deprived of their holdings, that is the settlers of world war No. 1, and also whether or not those holdings have been resold?
Privilege-Mr. Diefenbaker


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I suggest to my hon. friend, if be does not mind, that we take up that matter to-morrow morning?


George Hugh Castleden: Agreed.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, August 16, 1946