1947-06-11

OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
EDMOND CLOUTIER, C.M.G., B.A., L.Ph., PRINTER TO THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY CONTROLLER OF STATIONERY 1948
[Stage Direction]

House of Commons ©efaates
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 11, 1947

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

Mr. BURTON:: 1.	Has the government given further consideration to the requests made by the Alberta farmers' union and the United Farmers of Canada (Saskatchewan section), in their brief presented to the cabinet in August, 1946?
2.	If so, what action has been taken with respect to items one, two and three of the above-mentioned brief?


Mr. GARDINER:: I can best answer this orally. As to part 1, a full reply was given later to the brief which was presented in August of last year, and subsequently a committee representing the farm organizations came to Ottawa. There was oral consideration of the request made, and it was agreed

at least if not agreed it was admitted-that an effort had been made to meet the situation which was presented in the brief. Since that time there has been no necessity for further consideration other than the carrying out of the undertaking under the Agricultural Prices Support Act. With respect to part 2 of the question, the explanation I have given covers items one, two ana three of the brief.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Answered.


WEATHER STATIONS
Mr. McKAY:: 1.	How many weather stations have been established in Canada's northern territories since V-E day?
2.	Has any foreign country assisted the Dominion of Canada financially in the setting up of these stations? If so, to what extent?
3.	Where are these weather stations located?
4.	Under wbat department of government are they operated?
5.	How many Canadian personnel are involved in their operation?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 
ROAD FROM ALASKA HIGHWAY TO YUKON-B.C. BORDER
Mr. ARCHIBALD:: 1.	Have tenders been called for the building of a road into Atlin, British Columbia, from the Alaska highway to the Yukon-British Columbia
border?
2.	If so, what are the names of those submitting tenders and what was the price of each tender?
3.	To whom was the contract awarded?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	No.
2. Answered by No. 1.
3. Answered by No. 1.
farm labour


Mr. HEON:: 1.	Is there an agreement between Canada and the United States with respect to the recruiting of Canadian farm labour for the United States?
2.	If so, what is the nature and extent of this agreement ?
revised edition
Questions

3.	How many Canadian farm labourers have gone to the United States per province for each year since 4940?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Arrangements were originally made in 1941, following the drawing up of the Hyde Park agreement of April 20 of that year. These arrangements, which provided for the exchange of seasonal agricultural labour and equipment between Canada and the United States, have been continued each succeeding year through an exchange of notes between the respective departments of state.
The purpose of these movements is to facilitate the exchange of workers mainly between adjacent areas of the United States and Canada and to take advantage of labour which may be available due to seasonal variation between the two countries.
Arrangements for these movements are dealt with in Canada under the dominion-provincial farm labour programme. Care is taken to see that workers can be spared from the district in which they are recruited and that they proceed to designated areas when and where their services are required. While many of the workers are recruited from rural border areas, the movements last year included a considerable number of unemployed urban workers
Movements of farm labour arranged under this agreement include:
(a>
Movement of combine units, including necessary crews, from the prairie provinces to the midwestern United States during the summer, and a return movement from the U.S. to assist in harvesting crops in the prairies in the fall;
(b)	Movement of tobacco workers from the southern U.S. to Ontario and Quebec;
(c)	Movement of Canadian potato harvesters from Quebec and New Brunswick to Maine and from Manitoba to North Dakota.
(d)	Movement of workers from Quebec to the New England states for fruit and vegetable picking and processing.
3.	Under this agreement the approximate numbers of agricultural workers going to the United States on a seasonal work basis since 1942 are as follows:
N.B.	Quebec	Prairie Provinces1942 	
588	600	1001943 	
-	700	5001944 	
378	1,500	5501945 	
300	4,300	2,3501946 	
400	5,900	3,900



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. REID:: Of the Japanese entering Canada from April 1, 1939 to March 31, 1947:
1.	How many had previously resided in Can

ada?
2.	What were the numbers who entered in each year from September, 1939?
3.	Of the number who previously resided in Canada, in what year did they leave Canada for duties or residence abroad or in Japan?
4.	Have any citizens of Japanese origin, either naturalized or born in Canada renounced their allegiance to Japan or the Japanese government?


DEPUTY MINISTERS
Mr. RAYMOND (Beauharnois-Laprairie):: 1.	Who were the deputy ministers in each department of the government on October 20, 1935?
2.	Between October 20, 1935 and June 1, 1947, what appointments were made to these various positions; wrhen was the appointment made in each case and whom did each appointee replace?


ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. The papers this morning say that "First peacetime staff course in Canada concludes at Royal Military College." The article goes on to point out that the present location of the Canadian army staff college is-


James Horace King: Order. May I call the hon. member's attention to the fact that in asking his question he should not give information to the house; he should seek information from the government.


Mr. GRAYDON:: He is only laying the foundation.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Is it true, Mr. Speaker, that the present location of the Canadian army staff college is at the historic Royal Military college, where from 1876 to 1941 cadets trained for commissions in the Canadian and British armies? Was Major General J. F. M. Whiteley commandant of the Canadian army staff college, and was Colonel R. P. Rothschild its director? What I want to ask is this. Is it true that the next course to be held at the staff college is scheduled to begin early in 1948? If so, does

Inquiries oj the Ministry
that mean that the college will not be open as it used to be for the training of cadets of younger age?


Hon. BHOOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Defence):: An announcement was made in the house some time ago, and also by way of press release, that it is the present plan to reopen the Royal Military College as a cadet college for all three services in September, 1948, and to carry on two combined service colleges, one at Royal Roads and one at the Royal Military college on a similar basis.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: May I ask a supplementary question? Does that mean that examinations for entrance will be those which are taken in the spring of '1948, and that the selection will be made from the results?


Brooke Claxton: An announcement will be made later as to the entrance requirements. At present the entrance requirements for Royal Roads are senior matriculation or its equivalent.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: That does not answer the question about Royal Military college. Are the qualifications the same?


James Horace King: Order. I know that the hon. member is anxious to abide by the rules of the house.


Mr. FULTON:: He is anxious to get an answer to his question.


James Horace King: The hon. member knows that questions asked on the orders of the day should be brief and to the point, and be on matters of urgency. May I suggest to the hon. member that he put the other question on the order paper.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Mr. Speaker, the question is urgent from this point of view. I really want to know now, not a long time later, what the plans are to be.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: You are doing well. Stay with it.


P.E.I. CAR FERRY SUGGESTION AS TO NAME OF VESSEL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. KING HAZEN (St. John-Albert):: I crave your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, to be allowed to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. I believe it is brief and to the point. In appreciation of the great interest 83166-2574
he has taken and the increasing efforts he has made to hasten the construction of the Prince Ediward Island car ferry, will the government give consideration to naming the vessel the "W. Chester S. McLure"?


Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport):: I can assure the hon. gentleman that the minister as well as the government is quite prepared to give that matter consideration.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Might I suggest "Grant MacNaught" as the name?


PUBLIC WORKS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Gooderham Ross: I wish to ask another question, now that we have had all these speeches of congratulation which everybody has enjoyed very much. I congratulate the Prime Minister on his twenty years of service and on all that he has done. It seems to me there has been an announcement that a tunnel is ito be put undei; the harbour at Halifax. Will the Minister of Public Works take into consideration or reconsideration the building of a tunnel between Toronto and Toronto island?


Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public Works):: I suggest that the hon. member put that question on the order paper.



INCOME WAR TAX ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance) moved the third reading of Bill No. 269, to amend the Income War Tax Act.
Edmund Davie Fulton: I indicated to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), when this bill was in committee, that there were certain representations I wished to make, which it was not possible for me to make at that time. In the course of some ten minutes I wish merely to bring to his attention once more a matter to which I think he should give the consideration it requires, which calls for a decision by the government. It is the question whether or not basic herds shall be classified as capital or income. This matter has been before the house, to my personal knowledge, for the last three years.
I take this opportunity of speaking only because I feel deeply that it is regrettable that a decision has not been made prior to this time. Each year the matter has been brought up, promises of consideration have
Income War Tax Act

been made. This year the words of the minister were that "very real consideration" was being given to the question. Previously it was only "consideration". Now we are advised that it is "under active consideration" between him and the Department of National Revenue. The purpose of my rising at this moment is to suggest that more than consideration be given. Active consideration is not sufficient, because not only is hardship being inflicted upon those who are selling their herds at this time, or are anxious to sell them, but a very real injustice is being inflicted on those people.
Instances have been given in the past of sales which have been made and in which injustices have resulted, or of sales that otherwise would have been made but which have been held up because of the hardship which would follow, inasmuch as the proceeds would be regarded as subject to income tax in the one year in which the sale was made. Canadian people, such as the citizens whom I have in mind, who have made a real contribution to the development of this country, who have built up their industry over a period of from forty to fifty years and are now anxious to retire or to pay off debts and have enough left for their livelihood, are prevented from doing that because of what I may call, without exaggerating, inertia on the part of the government; and I think it is my duty as a member to bring this matter forcibly to the attention of the house. While in a sense I feel that I should apologize for taking the time of the house, nevertheless I feel that I would be neglecting my duty if I did not take these few minutes to impress upon the government once again, as I gave notice during the budget debate that I would do, the real urgency of this question.
I am going to give just two more examples of how this failure to recognize a breeding or basic herd as capital works injustice upon our people. I know of the case of a man who in 1943, because of a shortage of feed owing to an unexpectedly severe winter, was forced to sell approximately half his herd, which otherwise he would not have sold because it was a continuing operation. Having sold those cattle in 1943, when he made his return in 1944 he found himself required to pay .income tax on the proceeds, though he had intended to keep those proceeds over the winter and reinvest them next year in buying back the animals he had not been able to carry through the winter. In other words, he was realizing on his capital intending to reinvest it the next spring and summer, but was forced to pay income tax on those pro-

ceeds at the very high rate then prevailing. So the following year he was simply unable to make the reinvestment which otherwise he would have been able and had expected to make. That is the first example of what happened because of the failure to decide whether or not breeding herds are, in fact, capital.
The other case came to my knowledge just last evening, in the form of a letter I received from a solicitor in my constituency, who brought to my attention the case of an estate in the vicinity of Ashcroft. This was the case of an old pioneer rancher in that district who, being taken ill during 1945, was unable to carry on his ranching operations. So he and his family sold his, herd, realizing $5,487 through the sale. As I say, that was in 1945. Toward the end of that year the rancher died and his executors set up these whole proceeds in the capital assets of the estate. I would ask the house and the minister to bear in mind that these proceeds were reckoned to be part of the capital value of that estate for succession duty purposes. I think I should continue by reading the letter, since it sets forth the circumstances clearly:
A short time ago the son of this rancher came in about a claim by the income tax department for some $450 which they claimed to be still due, and I wrote to the income tax department asking them if in view of the fact that this was the sale of the whole band of cattle caused by the fact that the testator was unable to continue operations owing to his illness . . . that the department would use the discretion which the Minister of National Revenue had stated they made a practice of doing in cases of this kind, and not tax the whole ambunt as the income of one year.
Then, if I may make the request, I want the house to listen carefully to the next paragraph:
The inspector of taxation wrote back and said that he did not feel disposed to open up the file in this matter and asked for payment in full immediately. He also claimed a penalty of $48.62 for late filing.
The letter continues:
Now the widow in this case was seventy-eight years old and lives quite a number of miles to the east of the 70 Mile Post.
It then continues with some of the local geography in question, and indicates that this lady could not obtain expert advice as to how to market her cattle so as to avoid liability for income tax, and then concludes:
The result was that she was assessed the sum of $972.34 which, together with the penalty, amounted to $1,021 or one-fifth of her total capital after disposing of these assets.
There, it seems to me, is a clear example of how this indecision results in hardship to

Income War Tax Act
Canadian citizens. Here is an estate forced to realize a capital asset. They cannot continue operations, and this results in the realization of some $5,000 in cash. Because it is all regarded as income and subject to taxation in the one year, they have to pay out over $1,000; and I think the house will realize what that means to a widow of seventy-eight years of age, when over one-fifth of her husband's estate is taken from her under the heading of income tax when in effect it is capital assets and will in its own turn be subject to estate duties by both provincial and dominion governments.
I see that my ten minutes are nearly up, and I shall try to keep my undertaking not to hold up the matter longer. I wish to conclude by saying that last summer I went to see the then minister of finance about this question and had with him a full and friendly interview in which he professed to be impressed, not by my arguments particularly, but by the arguments which could be marshalled in favour of recognition of the principle that a breeding or basic herd is capital. But he said that at the time, because of pressure of business, he was unable to keep all those arguments in his head-and I quite appreciated that-and asked me to submit a brief summarizing these points of view. I submitted that brief to the minister with an accompanying letter on June 21, 1946, just under one year ago. In that brief I made reference to the brief submitted by the Department of Agriculture. Just here I should like to point out that the other evening, when we were discussing the agriculture estimates, I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) whether he and his department had changed their views with regard to this matter. In his reply the minister said that they had not changed their view, but that of course the decision by his department was not the final word, and that he believed the Department of National Revenue was endeavouring to work out a system. Last year, when this matter was discussed in the house, on no fewer than four occasions the present Minister of Finance said that this matter was receiving earnest consideration. I drew to his attention the fact that in the United States the bureau of internal revenue recognized the principle that a breeding or basic herd is a capital asset, and he said then they would look into the United States practice and see. This discussion is to be found at page 3860 of Hansard for July 25, 1946.
These matters have been brought to the attention of the government again and again.
The principle has been outlined clearly. I do not think it would be proper for me to repeat the arguments, but I want to emphasize that, in spite of these matters having been brought to the attention of the government, here we have a case, as revealed in this letter to which I have referred today, where an unfortunate Canadian woman seventy-eight years of age is being deprived of one-fifth of the capital value of her husband's estate because of failure to reach a decision as to whether or not a breeding herd is a capital asset. I call upon the government earnestly and urgently to lose no more time in making this decision, so that simple justice may be done these people who have put in many years in building up some of the pione.er and frontier regions of our country.
Mr. H. W. HERRIDGE (Kootenay West); Mr. Speaker, because I have a large number of constituents who are not at all satisfied with some sections of this act, I want to speak for two or three. minutes in connection with taxation of cooperatives. I could speak at some length, but I shall endeavour to be brief.
I should like to make a recommendation to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). I am of the opinion that the knowledge of the minister and of many of his officials in connection with the operation of cooperatives is strictly theoretical. I do not blame him for that. But I suggest that if the government is going to understand at all the various types of cooperatives-and there are many types-it would be well for the minister to have some senior officials visit typical dairy cooperatives to see how they function and to understand some of their practical difficulties. They should visit some of the fruit cooperatives, some of the fruit producer and consumer cooperatives, and some of the service cooperatives. I have in my constituency a particular type of cooperative in which there are associated about 1,000 or 1,500 members, and which owns cars for transportation purposes, and represents another development in the cooperative movement.
I believe the minister and his officials would have a better understanding of their problem and their difficulties if some of the senior officials would visit these organizations and look into the practical difficulties they face from day to day under the present legislation. The same applies to fishing and to service cooperatives.
I rise at this time simply to make that suggestion and recommendation to the minister,
Income War Tax Act

because I believe that it will lead to better understanding of the problems of cooperatives under this legislation.


Mr. C. C. MILLER (Portage la Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take only a moment or two to bring one or two points to the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) or the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann).
In the constituency I represent there are a number of railwaymen, and they have been communicating to me a grievance they maintain they have. That grievance is that there is a deduction made from their salary cheques for pension funds. They feel they should have the same consideration in respect of those deductions for pensions as civil servants have. In other words, civil servants with similar deductions from their pay cheques for pensions can deduct the same from their income tax returns for assessment purposes. The railwaymen, in large numbers, feel that they should have the same privilege. I ask, on behalf of those constituents of mine who work on the railroads, for consideration by the appropriate minister.
There is one other small matter. I believe that in the collection of income tax the inspectors should be instructed to interpret more generously the matter of away-from-home expenses. As I understand it, at the present time the railwaymen of the running trades can deduct from their incomes certain allowances for expenses while they are away from home earning salary upon which they are taxed. We think that provision should be more generously and generally applied.
Let me give one example. In western Canada, particularly during the war years many young men were hockey players. Several of them have gone from my own home town. They had to go to New York, Detroit, and perhaps Toronto. But more particularly they had to go to the United States in order to earn the comparatively large salaries they did earn. Not only were they taxed upon what they earned, but there was added to their incomes the appropriate premium on United States exchange at that time. That seems to be all right, because it is the general practice. But these young men had to be away from home. They were bringing United States currency into this country in substantial amounts when United States currency was badly needed, and no recognition whatsoever has been given to them for that. I maintain that when they are away earning these salaries they should be entitled to away-from-home allowances. I know of no inspector

of income tax who is making that allowance. This is particularly important in Winnipeg and Regina.
I would ask that the Minister of National Revenue give serious consideration to a more generous treatment of these young hockey players in that regard. I have mentioned hockey players as an example, but there are many others who earn their money away from home to as great an extent as do those in the running trades on the railroads. I know of no occupation, other than the running trades, which is given this special consideration by way of deduction of away-from-home expenses, and I suggest that consideration should be extended to almost every walk of life where a man has to be away from home to earn the money upon which he is taxed. I maintain, further, that if the act were properly interpreted, it would be interpreted in that way; and I suggest that the minister instruct his enforcement officers accordingly.


Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to endorse the remarks and the argument set forth by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). This is not a new matter; I discussed it in the budget debate at this session, and I have discussed it on other occasions.
We thought we were getting somewhere at one time with the predecessor of the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). Negotiations had taken place between his department and the Department of Agriculture. On the basis of what had happened in that connection in the great nation to the south of us, we were led to believe, some two or three years ago, that something would be done to allow basic herds as capital. There have been many instances of hardship, especially as set forth by the hon. member for Kamloops.
I do not wish to discuss the matter in detail again, but I request that the minister have his department give further consideration to this unfair system, and try to evolve some policy which will be of benefit to those affected.


Mr. ABBOTT:: My hon. friend was not in his seat last night, or he would have known that I gave that assurance.


Mr. A. J. BRADSHAW (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I trust I am in order on the motion for third reading of the bill to ask one question of the minister. Last session, legislation was passed in regard to farmers mutual fire insurance companies. The new legislation makes them liable ito the thirty per cent cor-

Municipal Improvements
poration tax on profits, and profits are considered by the income tax officials as the difference between the total of all receipts from premiums, interest on investments and from re-insurance, less expenses of management and losses paid. There must necessarily be a substantial surplus to provide a reasonable reserve for unexpected and severe losses. This yearly surplus will be taxed at the rate of thirty per cent.
We have sixty-seven insurance companies in Ontario. The executives of the insurance companies of Ontario interviewed the department in the month of January, and ithe ruling given at that time was to the effect that mutual insurance companies operated for the benefit of farmers "to the extent stated by you, and which are members of your association, would be exempt from taxation under the provisions of section 4 (1) of the Income War Tax Act, as long as the said section is in force."
I should like the minister to say whether this taxation is still in force.


Douglas Charles Abbott: With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Bradshaw), this class of mutual fire insurance companies is treated in exactly the same way as any other mutual corporation, or any cooperative for that matter. They are entitled to deduct from their earnings any refund or refunds, patronage dividends, and the like, before arriving at taxable income. But there is no distinction between so-called farm mutuals and other mutuals. Consequently (the ruling to which my hon. friend refers, which was given in January, was in error as to the true position under the law.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, some time ago I suggested a plan to dispense with the income tax and replace it with a tax on bank clearings. I should like to ask the minister if he will be kind enough during the recess to give instructions to his officials to examine the matter and offer constructive criticism in that regard. I do not contend that the plan is perfect, but I should like to have all possible objections from the officials of the Department of Finance in order that I may know what can be done with it. If the minister will be kind enough to bring down that information in due course, I think the people will be satisfied.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. W. MAYHEW (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 256, to amend the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act, 1938.
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): Mr. Speaker, this amendment does not appear to be very important. It may be a useful amendment, although I am bound to say that the terms upon which loans hitherto made to municipalities are being altered, pursuant to the terms of this amending bill, are being made so severe that I question if advantage is likely to be taken of the act on many occasions. We are not told in the explanatory note what has given rise to the amendment, but it may be that some municipalities which have already received loans have gone through some change in municipal structure or municipal boundaries.
This is a convenient occasion to ask the government what its policy is with reference to the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act. This act was passed in 1938 at a time when conditions were quite different from those which generally prevail today. Many municipalities were still struggling out of the days of near insolvency or at least financial difficulty, but most of them have since made substantial progress. The act was not drawn upon by many municipalities. This is a proper occasion, it seems to me, for asking the government if it intends to make any substantial use of this act in the days that lie before us.
It will be recalled that the act made provision for loans at two per cent per annum on an amortized basis, the period of the amortization being set by the governor in council, for the purpose of assisting municipalities in proceeding with the construction or extension of works of certain kinds which were defined in the act as self-liquidating projects. Back of it was the intention to assist municipalities at low interest rates in constructing works that would bring not only local benefit to the citizens but would assist in providing employment.
A few months ago I obtained information in reply to a question which I had placed on the order paper with reference to advances made to municipalities under the provisions of this act. I think this is a matter of interest to the
Municipal Improvements
[Stage Direction]
house and I should like to ask permission to place this table on Hansard. It is not a lengthy table and I think that would save time, which I am sure we are all anxious to do.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Has the hon. member unanimous consent?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Mr. FLEMING:: This is the table:
Advances made to municipalities pursuant to loans approved under the provisions of the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act, 1938
Municipalities within the province of:	1938	1939	1940	1941	1942	1943	1944	1945'	TotalsPrince Edward Island. Nova Scotia	$ cts. 7,000 00	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts. 7,000 00 641,436 96 467,513 80 1,719,186 74 205,988 00 851,100 81 888,254 85 2,114,757 70203,861 96 342,513 80	437,575 00 125,000 00 196,787 50 29,649 00 248,937 62 278,757 00 381,640 40	New Brunswick	857,732 50 3,500 00	337,889 50	215,687 24	55,545 00	55,545 00	Manitoba	172,839 00 602,163 19 530,670 35 1,439,576 25	Saskatchewan	Alberta	76,733 50 187,500 00	2,094 00 106,041 05	British Columbia	Totals	271,233 50	3,291,624 55	1,698,346 52	969,367 55	337,889 50	215,687 24	55,545 00	55,545 00	6,895,238 86
Note.-No advances made during 1946.
The province of Ontario did not avail itself of the provisions of the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act, 1938
No municipality could obtain a loan under the terms of the act unless the loan was guaranteed by the province in which the municipality was situated. It will be seen that in the amending bill the provinces are again ' being drawn into it. Unless the province stands behind the municipality and the municipality delivers debentures to the dominion government, no advantage of the amendment can be claimed by a municipality. The province of Ontario did not avail itself of the provisions of the act and actually since 1941 only municipalities in one province, Quebec, have obtained advances under the act.
Nothing has been advanced under the act since 1945. The total amount advanced by the dominion government pursuant to the terms of the act in the nine years since it was first enacted is only $6,895,238.


Mr. MAYHEW:: I think the hon. member would like to be correct. This act has not been in operation since 1941. It has been in operation for only two years and ten months. It has not been in operation since the war, in other words since 1941, and there have been no loans granted.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the hon. member has misdirected his correction. I am referring to a return made by his department. It may be that the terms of the act were not used extensively by municipalities, but the return made by the Department of Finance shows that since 1941 the following advances were made:
1942		 $337,889.50
1943		 215,687.24
1944		 55,545.00
1945		 55,545.00

A note on the return states that no advances were made during 1946. I repeat, that is a return made by the Minister of Finance in reply to my question. For these reasons I should like to ask the government to state its intentions with reference to this act. Is it to be allowed to become a dead letter or is there any thought of making any real survey of the purposes for which it was originally intended?
Section 10 of the act reads:
The minister shall annually prepare a report with regard to loans made under the provisions of this act during the preceding calendar year, and the report shall be laid before parliament within fifteen days, or if parliament is not then sitting, within fifteen days after the beginning of the next session.	,
The requirements of that section have apparently been honoured more in the breach than in the observance. It is like a great many similar sections that we encounter in statutes passed by this parliament requiring annual reports-they are simply ignored by the government. It is high time the government made a serious attempt to heed and obey the terms of this and other statutes providing for annual reports to parliament on operations under acts.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the house is the second reading of a bill to amend the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act. That act grew out of a form of assistance which was created during the depression between the two wars and it was founded on the same principles as the Municipal Assistance Act. I had a return when the minister introduced the

Municipal Improvements
resolution preceding this bill; I have not that with me at the present time but I have sent for it. I asked how many dollars had been voted last year in connection with this fund. It was largely a civic problem. In 1936 an act similar to this one was introduced, under which the province was to contribute one-third, the federal government one-third and the municipalities one-third, to provide employment, and under that act in the province of Quebec, Three Rivers got a court house, gaols and roadways, while the city of Montreal got parks and public driveways, and many other municipalities got educational buildings of all kinds. But Ontario, under the leadership of a popular premier of that day did not get one cent of assistance for its municipalities. If we are to have this form of assistance let us have equality of treatment for all the provinces. This legislation is to assist the municipalities with what might broadly be called local improvements, such as waterworks systems and many other forms of municipal ownership, necessary and useful works which the municipalities cannot finance themselves. I believe the time is coming when there will have to be liberal treatment for the municipalities, and particularly there should be equality of treatment.
I had a return brought down to show what was done under the previous act and I found that, while various municipalities in Quebec and other provinces got assistance, municipalities in Ontario got nothing. I could not find one dollar of assistance for Ontario in the return I got ten days ago. I do not say that municipalities out west should not have received assistance; far from it; I am glad that t-hey got assistance, but we ought to have equality of treatment for all the provinces. The time is coming when there will have to be further aid to municipalities. It was always understood at confederation that the principle underlying the giving of these grants under the British North America Act to the provinces was that the provinces should help to maintain the municipal institutions. Oliver Mowat once said that the provinces are only glorified city councils. But when the provinces get these subsidy grants under the British North America Act they do not give the municipalities anything. They just go ahead and spend the money themselves and the municipalities get nothing.
Here is a return that was brought down, under the act now before us, in reply to this question which I asked during this session:
What loans, listed by provinces, have been made to municipalities in Canada by the government towards the cost of self-liquidating
municipal works and projects under R.S.C. 1938, Chapter 33, "An Act to assist municipalities in making self-liquidating improvements?"
I find that Greater Vancouver water district got $750,000; Vancouver city $390,000; Saanich, $40,000; Prince George, $25,000; Nanaimo, $200,000, Grand Forks, $11,000; or a total for British Columbia, $1,416,635.
I come now to Alberta. Edmonton got $150,000; and two other amounts of $7,000 and $36,000; Lethbridge got $100,000. I believe that politics was mixed up in some of these cases. In fact everything voted in this house has politics in it because politics is the science of government. Municipalities which feel that they cannot get along come to Ottawa for assistance. I was saying a moment ago that in the province of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works they had court houses and schools and roads built.


Alphonse Fournier: Does the hon. member mean under this legislation?


Thomas Langton Church: Yes; it is the same principle under the act passed a few years ago.


Alphonse Fournier: I wish to tell my hon. friend that in the province of Quebec we do not build court houses or roads with federal money.


Thomas Langton Church: With all due respect, I think I know something about this thing.


Alphonse Fournier: Not as much as I do.


Thomas Langton Church: I got a return of unemployment relief projects in 1938-1939. Quebec got millions, Ontario nothing, of works built by federal aid. You got court houses and roads and parks and all that kind of thing under the former act. For the benefit of the minister I will continue reading about the assistance given to Alberta under the act now before us. Medicine Hat received $26,000; Calgary, $21,000, $8,000, $37,000, $82,000 and $46,000; Grande Prairie, $50,000; Wetaskiwin, $26,000. Alberta received a total of $591,318.73.
I come now to Saskatchewan. Regina received $60,000; Prince Albert, $75,000; Moose Jaw, $200,000; Melfort, $40,000; Saskatoon, $13,000; Yorkton, $24,000; Canora, $3,000; Pelley, $6,000; Melville, $4,300; Regina, $140,000. We have municipalities in Ontario that would like a hand-out like this. But. the Ontario taxpayer has to pay for it all. Under this act there should be equality of treatment, because this money is paid out of direct taxation and the two provinces contributing most to pay for these improvements are the two central provinces. Saskatchewan received a total of $566,200.

Municipal Improvements

I come now to New Brunswick. Fredericton received $200,000; Saint John, $112,000; Dalhousie, $20,000; Sussex, $35,000; Edmunds-ton, $35,000; or a total of $402,513.80 for New Brunswick.
I am not objecting to the principle of this legislation. I am just asking that there be an equality of treatment. I appreciate the fact that the municipalities and towns have not the financial support that they should have, and I am glad to see them get assistance. My argument is that this principle of assistance should be applied to all the provinces, and the fund will have to be much larger. I remember that my hon. friend the member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) raised this question last year and the year before, that the principle of giving moneys to municipalities as subventions for services rendered should be reciprocal, and I supported it. There should be equality of treatment for all provinces.


Mr. W. ROSS THATCHER (Moose Jaw):: If I understood the minister correctly under this act, a municipality can borrow up to $200,000 from the department. The city of Moose Jaw made such a loan some years ago. They were repairing and adding to their *waterworks system. Today they are in the position that they may wish to make a further loan, and they are greatly interested in having the ceiling amount of $200,000 increased. This is a resolution which they passed only a few weeks ago with regal'd to this act. I wish to put it on Hansard for the information of the minister. They recommend that the act be amended as follows:
(a)	By the removal of the limitation on, or a substantial increase in the aggregate loans which may be made to any particular municipality.
(b)	The extension of the provisions of the act to approved capital works, which may not necessarily be self-liquidating, where appropriate bylaws are passed to service the repayment of the monies borrowed by a levy on the municipality at large.
This is what the Moose Jaw city commissioner himself said to me in a letter:
We are much interested, therefore, in getting the limit on the maximum loans removed. It is our opinion that this act should be placed in readiness where it can be used to full advantage, the moment the need arises for a national works programme.
In view of the fact that we may some day soon, need a larger scale public works programme, I wonder if the minister would consider raising that maximum amount. Would the government give the matter some consideration ?


Mr. JAMES SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: I feel in part responsible for the

introduction of this measure because it was I who asked the minister to make the amendment. In my riding there were two districts which received loans. The one to which this bill particularly refers is the village of West-view in the northern part of the riding. The large company town of Powell River is nearby, but many of the workers did not care to live in the town and so they started building private homes outside the company limits. They formed a small waterworks and improvement body under the British Columbia waterworks act and obtained, under this very act, a loan of $100,000. As a consequence of the loan and the installation of the waterworks the district grew rapidly and incorporated as a municipality. They wanted the loan transferred from the old waterworks district to the new municipality but there was no provision in the old act for such transfer of loan. For the last few years, therefore, they have been, electing dual commissioners, one set of commissioners to operate the waterworks and another set of commissioners to take care of all municipal business except waterworks. It was an unwieldy arrangement and I asked the Minister of Finance whether a change could not be made. He was good enough to introduce the amendment.
As regards the remarks of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) and those of the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), I think it should be stated in defence of the act that the loans made under it are not gifts from the federal government to the municipalities, but low interest loans. One of the best features of the loans is that not ai single loan is in default.
The other municipality in my riding, which received a loan in 1040, West Vancouver, received $200,000. The lowest rate at which they could have floated that loan in the public market was seven per cent, and to a small municipality the saving between seven per cent and, the two per cent under this act was a substantial one.
The reason there are no loans in Ontario is not the fault either of the municipalities or of the federal government. The provincial governments had to be the intermediary and guarantee the loans, and Ontario did: not choose to >do so.


Mr. HACKETT:: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question? Why would the municipality to -which he refers have to pay seven per cent, which seems to be a high rate, if there is any reasonable security?


James Sinclair: As a matter of fact, the municipality at the time was not in a very good financial position. But

Municipal Improvements
the good point about these loans is that they have not been given for parks, driveways and houses, but for self-liquidating projects such as waterworks. The loan has been paid off, and two per cent was enough to pay for it. The general finances of most municipalities then were bad, and even loans for self-liquidating projects could have been arranged, except for this provision, only at the higher rate. I think the hon. member for Eglinton will find that no loans have been made since 1941. Advances have been made on loans which were approved before 1941.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The table I read was a table of advances made under the act.


James Sinclair: But when it is said that there has been no annual report on loans made, I believe the last loans in Canada, except Quebec, were in 1940. The Quebec loans were made in 1941, because up to 1940 the Quebec provincial government had not taken advantage of the act. I think this is an excellent piece of legislation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Under section 10 there is provision for reports on administration.


James Sinclair: The actual loans were made and approved in 1941 at the latest.
In conclusion. I wish to thank the government for bringing in this amendment, which will permit the transfer of loans from one municipal body to a larger municipal body if such is established in the district.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Is it possible for the municipalities to get loans under this act today as before?


James Sinclair: I am only a private member. I am neither the parliamentary assistant nor the minister. The hon. member must direct his question to one of them.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: We are not in committee.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: My chief purpose in rising to say anything on this bill is to suggest to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance that when he speaks he should give the house a fairly comprehensive summary of the operations of the act since it was passed. I do not knowhow much information he may have with him, but if he has it he should do that, because this act having been passed in 1938 and having been operative only for a part of the time, many members are not conversant with it.
I was in the house at the time the act was passed and I believe it served, within its limited capacity, a useful purpose. Perhaps 83166-2584
the time is ripe for a reconsideration of the purpose of the act and its extension considerably as compared with its present scope.
I would emphasize the point made by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) that the loans made under this act are not hand-outs, as was stated by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church). They will all be paid back. Security is required, and there is nothing in the nature of a hand-out about the loans. I believe many municipalities have borrowed under the act for purposes of self-liquidating projects, and I am convinced that, in view of the financial condition of many of these municipalities, if not at this session then at the next, when probably it will be more necessary, the act should be extended.
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead): When the minister does answer the questions that have been put to him and the suggestions that have been made, I wish he would spare a little time to explain the necessity for this act.
The hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) said that the municipality of which he was speaking could not borrow money on the security which was offered for less than seven per cent. It occurs to me that if such is the case the security must have been of doubtful nature. I understand that there may be circumstances in which a government should come to the rescue of communities even if the security that they can offer be not of the best, where the health and general well-being of the community are at stake. On the other hand, if the securities are as good as we have been led to believe they are, it would appear to me to be a useless competition by the government with the proper and ordinary financial institutions of the country. To that extent, until we cease to believe in free enterprise and in the benefits which accrue from competitive undertaking, challenges of this kind to ordinary business should be abandoned. I would ask the minister, when he speaks, to deal with this aspect of the question.


Mr. RODNEY ADAMSON (York West):: Some municipalities will be faced with one problem for which provision is not made in this bill; and I am thinking of my own municipality in particular. It is the question of assistance for servicing Wartime Housing projects. I wish to explain to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the parliamentary assistant, what I mean. There is a project in the township of Etobicoke. There were 260 wartime houses put in there as a veterans housing scheme. Each house is rented to a veteran.
Municipal Improvements

and I think the monthly rental is $27. One of the conditions was that each veteran should have two children. I think the average is slightly more than two. In the school section there was either a five-room or a six-room school. The municipality is now faced with the immediate problem of an addition to accommodate some five hundred extra children for whom they have to provide schooling, tinder the present system this is a direct responsibility of the municipality. Obviously it is grossly unfair to add this great increase of school taxation for carrying charges, for the purpose of building a school, to the ordinary residents of that school section. Both the municipal and provincial authorities are working on the matter at the present time. There may be other cases like that across Canada but this is the only one I know of. I believe that in a case like that the federal government will have to assist either in the way of loans or by guarantees "in some way, so that the money for these schools can be raised at the current rate of interest of about 2| or 2f per cent.
This is a serious problem. Here we have a resident of a township who, all of a sudden, finds that his debenture rate on his school is tripled. I think it has gone up from ten mills to thirty mills. That is the estimate. I am not absolutely certain of my figures, but I think the figures have certainly tripled in that school section. Unless something is done, you will virtually bankrupt that school section; and through that school section, as the municipality as a whole will be burdened
with the debentures, you will run the danger of putting your urban municipalities in a serious financial position. I do not see anything in this bill, but I ask that the government give serious consideration to the problem which I have tried to present to the house.


William Ross Macdonald: If the hon.
member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Mayhew) speaks now, he will close the debate.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I will answer the questions as best I can. I will try to answer the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) first. He implied that this act was still in operation, but it has not been in operation since 1941. There were some loans in 1941. There were some contracts made on which advances were made since that time. But no further contracts have been made.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That does not say that
the act is not in operation.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Well, it is in operation,
but no additional loans have been made under it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is quite different.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The hon. member also
said that the annual report had not been tabled. The act provides that the report shall be tabled, and I think my recollection goes back to the time this year when I tabled that report. This is a copy of what I tabled at that time, and it reads as follows:



APPENDIX 2 THE MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS ASSISTANCE ACT, 1938

[Stage Direction]
Statement of moneys advanced, interest received, repayments of principal and balance outstanding, December 31, 1946
Province	Number of loans	Amount approved	Amount disbursed	Interest received	Principal repayment	Balance outstanding® cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	S cts.	$ cts.Prince Edward Island	i	7,000 00	7,000 00	932 64	1,623 14	5,376 86Nova Scotia	7	641,436 96	641,436 96	81,783 85	108,768 30	532,668 66New Brunswick	7	467,513 80	467,513 80	59,226 27	113,193 93	354,319 87Quebec	17	1,859,731 74	1,859,731 74	150,088 54	325,470 92	1,534,260 82Manitoba	5	205,988 00	205,988 00	24,785 20	73,802 64	132,185 36Saskatchewan	2S	851,100 81	851,100 81	107,172 26	245,776 80	605,324 01Alberta	23	888,254 85	888,254 85	97,094 46	385,001 61	503,253 24British Columbia	21	2,114,757 70	2,114,757 70	274,306 52	562,555 06	1,552,202 64109	7,035,783 86	7,035,783 86	795,389 74	1,816,192 40	5,219,591 46
I think, if the hon. member looks back in the records he will find that this has been tabled.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Yes	.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have done just what the parliamentary assistant proposes, and I think if he will look back in the records of the house he will not find any report tabled. What he

Municipal Improvements
has been referring to, I think, must be answers to questions asked, just like the table I put on the record this afternoon. Those were answers given in reply to questions which I put on the order paper. I think the hon. member, if he looks back over the record, will find that no report has been tabled in the house during this session.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Well, I have tabled a good many reports since the beginning of the year, and I cannot remember them all. I know that we have been very particular about tabling reports which we are obliged to table. Nearly every second day I am tabling some report. If the report has not yet been tabled, I will see that it is. These loans that remain are self-liquidating loans; that is, they are for waterworks, gas systems or electric light systems. They are not for sewerage systems, but are: for what are called self-liquidating undertakings. Therefore I think the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) was confused when he said that some of these loans were made for parks and the like. There were no loans made for that purpose.
The hon, member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) spoke about the way in which the loans were allocated. The total amount of the loans for this purpose granted in 1938 was $30,000,000. The way in which it was appropriated or allocated; was this.
The act provides:
. . . the aggregate amount of the loans to be made to such board, commission or agency and the municipalities concerned shall not exceed the maximum amount of loans which the municipalities would be entitled to receive if acting separately and shall be apportioned between the board, commission or agency and the municipalities concerned on a basis to be approved by the governor in council.
The amount provided would be in the ratio of the number of people in the municipality to the number of people in Canada as a whole, so that no single small municipality could get any really large loan. I hope that answers the hon. member.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: The government would not consider increasing that amount at the present time?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I could not state what the government would do, and I am quife sure, if the minister were here he would not be able to say what the government might do. I will see that the representations which have been made in this house today are brought to the attention of the minister. I think it has been a very useful loan, which served its purpose in the period from 1938 to 1941. After that, materials were needed for other purposes;
men were needed for other purposes; there was no need to provide additional work, and it seems to me it was a wise move on the part of the government to suspend those loans for the time being, in order that material and men might be used in the war effort. Whether or not they will put this in operation again, I cannot say. The total of the loans made was $7,035,783.86. The amount paid back was $1,816,192.40; the amount outstanding at the present time is $5,219,591.46; and there has been no default on any of the loans.
What we are asking here is something that probably should have been foreseen when the act was first drawn. Canada is a growing country, and perhaps it should have been anticipated that the small district of today will probably be a village a couple of years from now and a town a little later on. That is exactly what has happened. If I may use the words of the hon. member for Vancouver North, who supplied me with this memo:
The village and the improvement district have exactly the same boundaries and cover the same people. Each year the improvement district, however, had to continue to elect three trustees to administer the water works while the village, at the same time, elected three village commissioners. This seemed a needless duplication, so in 1946 a plebiscite was held in Westview on. amalgamation of the water district and village, and was carried. The village commissioners, with the approval of the department of municipal affairs for the provincial government, then applied to the federal government for transfer of the loan from the old improvement district to the village of Westview. This legislation is to enable such a transfer to be made.
That is all we are asking in this amendment.
To answer the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett), I think we have to look back to the time in 1938 when these loans were first made, and see the conditions we were facing at that time. Numbers of municipalities were not in very good shape financially. Work of this kind was needed, and other people were not ready to risk their money in those municipalities. I . grant that conditions have changed, and it is easy for us to look at the matter in a different light today; but if we go back to 1938 and look at the conditions which existed then, I think wye shall see the advisability of it. What the government may do in future is not for me to say; and I am quite sure, if the minister were piloting this bill he would not undertake to say it either.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee and reported.
Mr. MAYHEW moved the third reading of the bill.
Mr. H. W. HERRIDGE (Kootenay West):: I have a word to say before third reading is

Farm Improvement Loans
given. I had intended to say something on second reading, but was out of my seat for a few moments. Just before the end of the war and after the war ended, the provincial governments, under the stimulus of the federal government, and the municipalities, under the stimulus of the provincial governments, carried out, I think in most provinces, wide surveys in regard to plans for the rehabilitation of cities, villages, municipalities and local communities. 1 know those surveys were carried out in British Columbia, in the belief that the dominion government would soon make available funds for such improvements along the lines suggested in this act. I know that in British Columbia a number of municipalities have made plans for certain necessary improvements, expecting to be able to obtain money to finance these works under this or a similar act.
My other remark in this connection is this. There has been a great deal of discussion in this house concerning social credit, free enterprise, national credit and so on. If you will read the history of the reconstruction finance corporation in the United States I think you will come to the conclusion that if there is one form of investment in which we can safely use our national credit, it is investment of this kind. I do not think it would be beyond the ambit of, shall I sasq the philosophy of liberalism for the government when it brings this act into operation again to consider issuing credits or loans to the various municipalities concerned through the Bank of Canada. These are self-liquidating investments guaranteed by the province and, as the evidence given this afternoon has shown, the loans are absolutely secure. They represent capital invested in the publicly-owned capital structure of the country; so that I believe the government would be justified, from the point of view of any person in this house, in considering this proposal.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 257, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, 1944.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee and reported.
Mr. ABBOTT moved the third reading of the bill.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I frequently rise to criticize the government, but on this occasion I wish to congratulate the minister upon having brought this bill before the house. It will be of great benefit to a number of poultrymen in my constituency, who thus far have not secured help under the act in connection with the operations on their premises. On behalf of those poultrymen who, through the years, have looked forward to some amendment in the act to permit them to borrow, I wish to express thanks to the minister and the government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport) moved the second reading of Bill No. 181, to amend the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a simple bill, and it is being enacted in order to correct an omission made last year when the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act was passed. The act passed in 1946 did not provide for a reference to the Interpretation Act.
This bill seeks to cancel and revoke the regulations passed under the War Measures Act providing compensation for merchant seamen, and to bring into effect section 19 of the Interpretation Act, so that claims for compensation on behalf of merchant seamen begun under the regulations and not completed before the act came into force will not thereby be lost and the right of seamen for compensation will be protected.
This bill has been submitted to the Department of Justice, which has suggested that it be brought forward in this manner.
Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) has said, this bill amends the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act which was passed last year. That act,, in effect, replaced an order in council passed in July, 1945. If I am wrong in any of these statements the minister will correct me. I believe that this is the time to give some consideration to the compensation payable to those men who served in the merchant navy.
As I understand it, the original order in council had effect only from August 1, 1945. In other words, there was no coverage for a merchant seaman who was injured from 1939

Merchant Seamen
until August 1, 1945. I suggest that there should be put on our statute books without further delay some legislation which would cover those men injured in the merchant navy during the time I have mentioned, and which would also cover the dependents of those who lost their lives.
It might be that such coverage could not be given by an amendment to this act. There is, of course, another act known as the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, in which provision is made for the payment of pensions to merchant seamen, if the injury or disease was the direct result of enemy action, or counter-action taken against an enemy. However, very few cases come under that act, because the merchant seaman has to show that his injury or disease was the direct result of enemy action. In other words, he must almost be hit by a torpedo in order to qualify, for the pension.


Mr. MITCHELL:: If he were hit by a torpedo he would not be here.


Howard Charles Green: If a torpedo hit a tough man like the Minister of Labour I am sure it would not hurt him much.


Angus MacInnis: Too bad for the torpedo.


Howard Charles Green: I do not think it would be possible for a man to qualify under this Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act in respect of disease. I do not know how a disease could be traced directly to enemy action. However, proof that the act does not extend very far is found in the fact that only thirty-one seamen and dependents have been able to qualify for pension. On the other hand, I believe that of about 18,000 merchant seamen who served during the war, 1,091 lost their lives. In addition, many were sick and many others were injured. So that the percentage covered by the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act is very small indeed.
I point out to the minister that there are cases of this type which should be covered. For example, a ship is in port, and is blacked out. Let us say she is in the port of Liverpool. A seaman falls and is injured, or perhaps is killed, as a result of stumbling in the dark. I believe that if that happened before August 1, 1945, the only kind of compensation he or his dependents could get would be through claiming against the shipping company. I may be wrong in that, but that is my information.
Again, the same thing might happen while a ship is at sea. She is blacked out; a seaman falls-perhaps over lumber in the cargo.


Lionel Chevrier: He cannot claim under this act.


Howard Charles Green: He gets absolutely no compensation. He could have claimed under the act if it had happened after August 1, 1945.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: My point is that there is no help for those men between 1939 and August 1, 1945.
Then, referring again to sickness, I know of a case in Vancouver respecting a young lad who at an early age joined the merchant navy and caught a tropical disease. His health has been ruined, but he can get absolutely no help. There are many cases of that type which should be covered by some kind of legislation.
I know the objection has been raised that there would be no report made as to how the injury happened or how the disease arose, but I would point out that all ships have log books in which the facts would be carefully entered and, furthermore, there are port doctors at every port and records would be available from those sources.
Something must be done and done as soon as possible to help these merchant seamen. They are far too restricted, and I am afraid the difficulty is that they fall between two departments, the Department of Transport and the Department of Veterans Affairs. It seems to me that we w'ould get around this difficulty if we decided to treat them as members of the fighting forces. The general public has always considered that the men of the merchant navy were in the fighting forces, and His Majesty the King made a statement early in the war that the merchant navy was really the fourth arm of the services. During a portion of the wTar they had I think, more casualties than any other branch of the service. Canada has not treated her merchant seamen in the way they should have been treated.


Lionel Chevrier: Canada has treated her merchant seamen as well as the United Kingdom and the United States have.


Howard Charles Green: The United Kingdom has never given sympathetic treatment to her merchant seamen. I do not know about the United States and I do not really care. In my opinion, Canada has treated her merchant seamen shamefully and it is time something was done to remedy the situation. I do not see why the act should not be opened up to allow men who were permanently injured while in the merchant navy to get compensation and to provide some assistance for the depen-
Merchant Seamen

dents of those who lost their lives. If help is not to be given, in that way, it could be done by amending the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act.
The main decision to be made is whether or not we are to treat these men as part of the forces. This suggestion has been made by the legion right across Canada. Just last month the British Columbia command passed unanimously a resolution asking that the same treatment be given the merchant navy as if its members had been members of the armed forces, including vocational training grants, university education grants and other rehabilitation benefits. It is not only a question of compensation; it goes farther than that. For example, they cannot get vocational training unless they take that training for service in the merchant marine.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but this is a bill concerning compensation for merchant seamen in the nature of workmen's compensation. My hon. friend is now dealing with all the benefits to which merchant seamen are entitled.


Howard Charles Green: Are not entitled.


Lionel Chevrier: He is dealing with war benefits. I do not see how he can discuss vocational training under this bill. The act was discussed at some length last year, and this bill has to do with one subject only, workmen's compensation for merchant seamen. I will not attempt to interrupt the hon. member if he deals with that, but if he is going to cover the whole field of benefits to merchant seamen, then I submit that that is something which could be discussed on the estimates of the director of merchant seamen.


Howard Charles Green: I submit that I have a right to discuss the various types of compensation which could be paid to merchant seamen and their dependents. I do not think the minister can say, "You must go this far and no farther." He cannot say, for example, that I cannot go back and deal with compensation before August 1, 1945.


Lionel Chevrier: I will not attempt to interrupt you as long as you deal with compensation for merchant seamen because you are within your rights, but if you go beyond that and deal with other benefits, then I do not think you are in order.


Howard Charles Green: I submit that I should be allowed to deal with the different types of benefits which should be given to merchant seamen.


Lionel Chevrier: You will have every opportunity to do that on the vote concerning the director of merchant seamen.


Howard Charles Green: That may be brought up during the last days of the session.


Lionel Chevrier: I assure you it will not.


Howard Charles Green: The minister cannot be sure
himself. I do not think this is a case where the minister should draw the line too tightly.


William Ross Macdonald: I would draw the attention of hon. members to the second paragraph of the explanatory note which reads:
The sole purpose of the bill is to preserve rights to compensation acquired under the regulations before the act came into force and to continue under the act all proceedings taken under the regulations.
I think the discussion should come within the terms of that paragraph.


Howard Charles Green: I would think that really covers the whole field, but I will not press that point. Finally, I would point out to the minister that these men were given gunnery practice; they were assigned to guns on ships and were really treated as men in the forces.


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: They were not paid like that.


Howard Charles Green: The Secretary of State had better keep out of this if he does not want to have his fingers burned. I might mention that they did not get any gratuities. We have had the argument thrown up before by members of the government that these men got good pay and therefore they should not get any further consideration. That is entirely too hard-boiled an attitude to take, and besides it is not correct.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think the government has taken that attitude.


Howard Charles Green: The Secretary of State-


Lionel Chevrier: He has not suggested that.	.


Howard Charles Green: -is trying to show that they got a lot of money.


Colin William George Gibson: I did not say that at all.


Howard Charles Green: That is what you meant. If the Secretary of State wants to go into that question, I have the facts on that also. I think he will be surprised to find out how little these men did get. They are the forgotten men of Canada of the last war, and it is time this parliament took action to see that that condition is changed.

Merchant Seamen


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I want to endorse what the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) has said, both that part of his speech which was in order and that part which was out of order. I believe that the compensation feature with which we are dealing should be extended beyond the time the order in council came into effect.


Lionel Chevrier: Prior to?


Angus MacInnis: Prior to. I think the minister will remember a case I brought to his attention in 1943 or 1944. This young sailor in the merchant navy was injured, he was not only crippled but he was paralyzed for life. This boy had a really wonderful physique, but because of his accident he will never walk again. Although the minister and members of his staff made all the inquiries they could when I took up the matter, and although they had the assistance of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie), it was found that nothing could be done for this individual. I am sure that is not a lone case, that there must be many others in the same circumstances. I think it is imperative that consideration be given to making this measure retroactive to 1941 or whatever other time should be specified to take care of all those who were injured in the merchant navy.


Mr. W. A. McMASTER (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I was surprised at what the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) said in reference to the number of seamen who have taken advantage of this act. I remember, when this bill was up in the house before and a large department was being created, I stated that I thought one stenographer could look after the whole thing.


Lionel Chevrier: I think the hon. gentleman misunderstood what the hon. member for Vancouver South said. He was not referring to those who had taken advantage of this act but to those who had taken advantage of the Civilian War Pensions Act, which is an entirely different thing and shows the danger of going off on a tangent when discussing compensation.


William Alexander McMaster: Regardless of that, I
would ask the minister when he replies, now or in committee, to tell us the number of seamen who have taken advantage of the act and to give us the cost of its administration.


Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, first I wish to say
that I agree with the two Vancouver members who have preceded me that this act should be made retroactive to the beginning of the war, because a large number of merchant
seamen suffered serious injury during the war and received no compensation. I know of several cases myself and one in particular I brought to the attention of the house, that of a boy who lost a leg and was crippled for life but could not establish a case for pension, and he will not come under this compensation legislation.
I rose primarily to get information. I should like to know if this act applies to Canadian nationals serving on ships of foreign registry. Many hundreds of Canadian nationals who served during the war on ships of foreign registry lost all the benefits that were applicable to Canadians who sailed on Canadian ships. This is something that should be rectified, and I want to be sure that this act is not carrying forward this injustice perpetrated by previous acts brought down by the government.
Second, I wish to know the mechanics of the minister's department with respect to an application for compensation. How is the application to be made and what are the rates that will prevail? Are they the rates of the province in which the seaman has his domicile? I know the rates are pretty well uniform across Canada, but they vary slightly as between provinces. I should like to have these questions answered, and I trust that the minister will give serious consideration to making this legislation retroactive.


Lionel Chevrier: I wonder if I might
answer those questions after the bill gets second reading.


Mr. C. C. I. MERRITT (Vancouver-Bur-rardi) :: Mr. Speaker, I want to support the appeal of other members of the opposition requesting the minister to make the act retroactive before 1945. The kind of case to which the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) referred of an injury at sea during wartime occasioned by bad weather or black-out is such an obvious reason for awarding compensation to these seamen that I feel that such action can hardly be refused.
I want to say this to the minister-and it arises out of his objection that the hon. member for Vancouver South was out of order in discussing veterans benefits-that even if you do, by this legislation extend workmen's compensation back to 1939 or some date prior to 1945, that is going at the problem of the merchant seamen in piecemeal fashion. To me the really important thing is that we should first establish the principle upon which merchant seamen are to be treated in the period from 1939 to 1945. Once we have established that principle, I do not think we would have this amendment to the act, but
Merchant Seamen

we might have a totally different act or a series of acts which would give to these seamen all the benefits that the veterans of the armed forces received, less perhaps certain items which the minister might feel should be excepted because of the special nature of the service of the merchant seamen. If we go on as we are doing now, simply taking one little bite at the problem, I think we shall find that what has been a grave injustice per-pertated on the merchant seamen will continue despite our efforts.
It will not do us any good just to get up and discuss these matters on the estimates. We should first establish the principle that the merchant navy was the fourth arm of the service and the minister should bring in legislation carrying out that principle. Then he might find that it would be better to deal with compensation cases before 1945 through the veterans affairs department, rather than under workmen's compensation. All during the war these merchant seamen were treated as civilians. I have the reference in 1942 when the then minister of finance, in refusing to exempt merchant seamen from income tax, gave as a reason for his refusal the administrative difficulties in exempting people employed by private owners of ships. The administrative difficulty there apparently was the only thing that made these seamen liable to income tax.


William Ross Macdonald: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but I should remind him that this bill deals with compensation to merchant seamen for injuries sustained. I do not think the act is wide enough to allow of a discussion of the income tax merchant seamen pay or of other benefits they might receive for having served in time of war, and I would ask the hon. member to confine his question to compensation for merchant seamen.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I shall certainly endeavour to keep within Your Honour's ruling. I mentioned income tax merely to illustrate what I was going to say. When we find that because these men are treated as civilians administrative difficulties interfere with their exemption from income tax I very much fear that even if we carry back the workmen's compensation principle before 1945 we shall come up against other administrative difficulties which will again put obstacles in the way of these seamen receiving benefits. I submit to you, sir, that I am speaking very much to the principle of the bill and the principle of the whole question of compensation for merchant seamen when I say that if a [Mr. Merritt.l
more generous principle were adopted behind this present measure, and if the merchant seamen were treated as the fourth arm of the service, then we would find this bill containing more generous provisions for the merchant seamen than if we continue to treat them as individuals who were engaged in a normal civilian pursuit, which is obviously the principle upon which this bill was founded.
It must be quite clear when you consider the figures, 1,400 merchant seamen in 1939 and 13,000 in 1945, that these men were not there in a normal civilian capacity as merchant seamen, but were there directly in pursuance of the war effort. When you have met some of them and learned their ages and the fact that many of them were schoolboys and that most of them had not engaged in seafaring before the war, then again it seems perfectly apparent that we must not treat them as civilians and must not provide for them only the kind of benefits which are ordinarily accorded people in a civilian capacity.
The very fact that this bill is a workmen's compensation bill worries me more than any other feature of it. If the government intended recognizing the other and more important principle, here would have been a splendid opportunity to introduce it. One could go on multiplying examples of the way in which these individuals were treated as civilians, doing an ordinary civilian task. For instance, there is the case of vocational training, which was restricted to those who wished to continue their career at sea. When you look at the figures of the total who served, and think of the size of the merchant navy before the war and in 1947 again you see that was not intended as a war benefit. The idea that these people were carrying on a normal civilian trade was prevalent in the minds of the officials of the department if it was not present in the minds of the minister and the government. I urge the minister, before his estimates come down, to give further consideration to changing the whole principle and dealing with the whole subject at one time.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: During the last war a great many boys from my riding, a great many boys from the great lakes, who tried to enlist in the army or the air force were turned down because they were not fit, and these boys went into the merchant marine and fought the battle of the Atlantic.
How many of you members of the House of Commons have been out sailing in the early spring when your dinghy upset? How many of you have been out in the cold waters in different places at that time of the year? How

Merchant Seamen
many of you have done that? How many of you have had an awful time getting to shore? How many of you have tasted the cold waters for two hours, or maybe an hour and a half, before being rescued?
Mr. SINCLAIR (Vancouver North!: We give up.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Who said that?


James Sinclair: I say we give up.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I cannot hear you.


James Sinclair: You asked a question.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: If you would speak a little louder I would hear you.


James Sinclair: You asked a question.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I do not know whether you are a seafaring man or whether you have ever been on the water in your life, but if you do not know what you are talking about, please do not interrupt.


James Sinclair: I was overseas in this war and I came back.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Are you a sailor? Have you ever been on the water? Have you ever been in the water for five hours without being rescued? I am making my speech and I know what I am talking about. I have been lour or five hours in the water without being rescued and I know what it is like. A great many of our lads from the great lakes went on the ocean. I know four boys who were in penitentiary and they got out for service in the merchant marine when they could not get out for other service because they were not ' fit. Should they not have compensation?
How would you like to be on a raft today, Mr. Speaker? How would any of the other members of the House of Commons like to be on a raft for two or three days? Have we had any members who have had the experience of being torpedoed?


James Sinclair: The Minister of Reconstruction.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I wish hon. members would keep their mouths shut.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Golding):: I must ask the hon. member to withdraw that .-statement.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I withdraw it, but the interruptions become annoying.


William Henry Golding: :Such language is not to be used in the house.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I am sorry it has been used and I withdraw it. I wish the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) were in his place now; I wish the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) were here. They have had the experience and they know what it is like to be in the water. The boys that I have been talking about did a good job in the battle of the Atlantic and we should give them credit for what they did. As a matter of fact, our troops have far better care than these boys who were on the boats. They were taken from here, there and everywhere. They had practically no care at all as far as medical examination was concerned, until we had the manning pool set up, and then we took them from every place. They did a good job for this country,, for Great Britain and for the United States as well, and they deserve every consideration that is given to any of the armed forces.
Take tne question of dental care. Well, they did not have any, not even after the pool was set up.


William Henry Golding: I must ask the hon. member to deal with the bill before us, which has to do with compensation.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I will just try to make a little plea. The bill deals with compensation. It deals with compensation before 1945.


William Henry Golding: Workmen's compensation.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Yes, workmen's compensation. If you do not call these people workmen, I do not know what they are. They work just about as hard as any people I ever knew on the job they have to do. Why they should be cut off from workmen's compensation before 1945 is beyond my comprehension. I should like to make a plea for them on this basis. I believe we should have at least workmen's compensation for them. That is the least we should have. I hope I shall not be called out of order when I say that they ought to have much more. I am talking about workmen's compensation now. They should have much more than everyday workmen's compensation and should be treated exactly the same as are members of the armed forces. They cannot get workmen's compensation to put them through the universities. Nevertheless they did a job for Canada, did they not? Certainly they did. That cannot be forgotten. They do not get workmen's compensation for disabilities which they had before workmen's compensation came in. Those boys did not have workmen's compensation when they risked their lives on
Merchant Seamen

rafts in the Atlantic ocean when they were torpedoed, but they got the food over there just the same.
I cannot say very much more about them and workmen's compensation, because the government will not do anything for them. But if you want to have a lot of communists around, you can have them if you do not take care of these boys who were incapacitated during those early years and who have no workmen's compensation. Perhaps I have not expressed myself very well. Perhaps the government do not understand what I mean.


Lionel Chevrier: I certainly do not.


James Sinclair: I too.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I will tell you what I mean, if you would like to know. Let your workmen's compensation for these seamen be equal to that received by the boys who fought in the forces. That is all I say.


Lionel Chevrier: It is.


Mr. H. G. ARCHIBALD (Skeena):: I should like to say a few words on this bill, although I spoke on it during the resolution stage. I can well understand why a bill such as this is being brought in, but there is just one thing I should like to repeat and it is this. If we are to have a merchant marine and to have such laws apply, we must protect the seamen we have at the present time under existing conditions, even forgetting what they did for us during the war. What I should like to see the government bring in along with this is legislation providing protection for Canadian seamen with respect to getting jobs on Canadian boats and providing that the Canadian merchant marine is not to be under foreign registry, such as Panamanian registry, , and subject to no marine laws. The unions are protesting this at the present time because they are having difficulty in placing their own men in jobs. I believe it would be pertinent for the government at this time to bring in legislation which would guarantee these men full employment. They have no such compensation as the other sections of the armed forces have, and the decent thing to do would be to guarantee them employment by having a real Canadian merchant marine.


William Henry Golding: I should like to remind the house that if the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I would not rise to say anything in the debate were it not for the fact that the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) has asked certain questions which I think are deserving of a reply. 
It is unfortunate to some extent that the debate on this bill has gotten away from its purpose and object. There is no doubt that this debate should not have been one to consider the benefits to merchant seamen. It is one which has to do with * compensation for merchant seamen, which is an entirely different matter. In 1946 there was passed by this house a bill which contained the benefits, the compensation and the manner in which compensation should be granted to these merchant seamen. In that bill there was one omission, namely, that those whose benefits or claims arose between the time the regulations came into effect under the War Measures Act in 1945 and the passing of the act in 1946, were not taken care of. There was a gap which the bill seeks to remedy by protecting that right. The only object of this bill is to provide against that, so that any claims which have been filed under the regulations and were not disposed of before the act came into force, will be dealt with in accordance with the terms of the act. That is the only thing this bill deals with.
That brings me to the question which the hon. member for Vancouver South pertinently asks. He says, "Why is it that there is no coverage for merchant seamen prior to the time the regulations came into force in 1945?" and he refers to the Civilian War Pensions Act and a number of cases for merchant seamen which were disposed of under that act. I have no intention of dealing with that act, but I should like to reply to the hon. gentleman and tell him that this matter was considered carefully by the government. First of all, it was considered in 1945 when the war was still on and when the merchant seamen's compensation regulations were enacted, and it was decided then and there, for the reasons which I will give in a moment, that it was not wise to make the regulations retroactive. Then again in 1946, when the act came down, it was debated at some length in the house and parliament gave approval to the principle that compensation be not made retroactive. What I am doing now is simply bringing in an amendment to the act to preserve rights to compensation acquired under the regulations before the act became effective, but not prior to the coming into force of the regulations.
My hon. friend asks why this is done. The reason is this. Today it would be practically impossible, in fact wholly impossible-to establish claims by medical evidence, because in the majority of cases the board would be unable to uncover satisfactory evidence to investigate the claim. We are confirmed in

Merchant Seamen
that position by the fact that the provinces do the same thing. The provinces have compensation for merchant seamen, and what do they do? They do not make their legislation retroactive. I cannot at the moment think of all the provinces which have compensation for merchant seamen, but I know British Columbia has.


Howard Charles Green: They did not have it until
1944 or 1945, did they?


Lionel Chevrier: It was quite recent;
but they did not make it retroactive, and their reason for not doing so is the same reason as I have given.


Howard Charles Green: It was not their responsibility to look after the merchant navy men.


Lionel Chevrier: It was their responsibility to look after merchant seamen within their own province. The legislation we enacted last year had nothing to do with merchant seamen within the confines of British Columbia or Ontario or Quebec. It had to do with merchant seamen on foreign vessels and in certain waters mentioned in the act. So if the provinces came to that conclusion, having had a great deal more experience than we have had in regard to workmen's compensation, I think we can take a leaf out of their book.


Howard Charles Green: Is it not a fact that the
provinces cover only the men who are in the coastal trade? What we have been complaining about today is the treatment meted out to the men who were crossing the Atlantic or the Pacific, in the war areas. They are no responsibility of the provinces.


Lionel Chevrier: I agree; but that does
not detract from the force of the argument I am attempting to make, which is that if the provinces decided against making compensation retroactive, whether it be for merchant seamen or whether it be for workmen in industry or elsewhere, they must have had reasons for it; and the reasons were those I gave. That is why we have followed the same course, because it would be impractical and impossible to establish, by means of evidence today, claims which might have arisen prior to the time the regulations came into force.


Howard Charles Green: The pensions people had the same problem after the last war.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member made a statement which I certainly think he did not mean, when he said that Canada had treated its merchant seamen shamefully. I am surprised that the hon. gentleman would make such a statement.


Howard Charles Green: I will repeat it right now.


Lionel Chevrier: All right; I will prove to the hon. gentleman that it is not so. Perhaps I should not say that; I may not be able to prove it to his satisfaction-


Howard Charles Green: I do not think you can.


Lionel Chevrier: -but I intend to place on record what Canada has done for her merchant seamen, and I think the house will agree that we have gone a long distance in coming to their assistance. If Canada has not done more my hon. friend has a share of the responsibility.


Howard Charles Green: Why?


Lionel Chevrier: It is not only the government that has the responsibility, because, if I understand the matter aright, a committee was set up, the veterans committee-


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: You do not understand it rightly.


Howard Charles Green: You do not understand a thing about it, then.


Lionel Chevrier: Let me go on, and we shall see whether or not I do. The director of merchant seamen was asked by that committee for his advice. He was asked what was being done for merchant seamen, and he wrote the acting chairman giving him a list of the benefits that were granted. He sat in that committee for some time waiting to be called to give evidence, but he was not called.


Mr. BROOKS:: Was it not understood in the veterans affairs committee that the Department of Transport would bring in a bill which would give merchant seamen treatment commensurate with that given other branches of the service? For that reason the veterans affairs committee did not press for those benefits. That was our understanding in the committee.


Lionel Chevrier: There was certainly no such understanding as far as I was concerned.


Howard Charles Green: But there was in the committee.


Lionel Chevrier: I was never approached, nor was I ever told, either directly or indirectly, that was the understanding. I want to make that quite clear.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: If the minister will go back over the evidence given before that committee I think he will find we had an understanding to that effect.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not denying that there may have been an understanding, but I
Merchant Seamen

am saying that if there was an understanding I certainly knew nothing of it.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is the cause of all the trouble today.


Lionel Chevrier: I come back to the point we are discussing now, namely compensation for merchant seamen. I would not have left that but for the fact that the hon. member for Vancouver South said merchant seamen were being treated shamefully. I do not think Canada is treating her merchant seamen shamefully, and I should like to put on record the benefits this country is giving to its merchant seamen. Then, if I cannot prove my point to the satisfaction of the hon. gentleman I shall let the house decide whether or not the benefits given are satisfactory.


Howard Charles Green: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was going to put on record the benefits Canada has not given her merchant seamen. If the minister is now going to say what benefits Canada has given them, then I submit we are entitled to put on record the benefits she is not giving.


William Ross Macdonald: The minister raised a point of order with respect to a discussion of benefits generally. Do I understand that now he desires to put on record the benefits which are given under the compensation act?


Lionel Chevrier: No, I was going to do much more than that. I believe I should be fair with the house, however, and I think the point of my hon. friend is well taken. I was interested in denying the statement my hon. friend has made. He objects to my putting this on the record. There will be another opportunity to do so at a later day.


Howard Charles Green: I do not object to the minister putting it on record if we are allowed to put on record the other side of the story.


William Ross Macdonald: I think the minister agrees that it would not be in order for him to put his statement on record without unanimous consent, and I am sure he will not do so.


Gordon Graydon: Should not both sides be put on the record?


Lionel Chevrier: I was simply replying to the charge that our merchant seamen had been dealt with shamefully. A number of questions have been asked to which I could reply seriatim, but perhaps in view of the hour I should reply when we get into committee on the bill.


Gordon Graydon: The public should, I think, have both sides of the story.


Lionel Chevrier: The public will have both sides.


Gordon Graydon: You had better put on your side and the hon. member for Vancouver South will put on his side.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, might I have the consent of the house to revert to motions in order to make at this time the usual motion about putting in as an appendix to Hansard the speeches made yesterday afternoon and today. If I have consent I move:
That the speeches delivered at the unveiling of the portraits of the late Right Hon. Sir Robert L. Borden and the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King on Tuesday, June 10th instant, and also the address delivered by Mr. Harry S. Truman, President of the United States of America, before the members of the Senate and the House of Commons in the chamber of the House of Commons today, the 11th of June, 1947, together with the introductory and related speeches, be included in the House of Commons debates and form part of the records of this parliament.
Motion agreed to.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Mr. G. S. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair there is a matter I should like to bring to the attention of the house. I am glad that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) is here tonight and that it was not necessary for me to go on last night in his absence. The matter which I wish to refer to is a matter which I attempted to bring before the house last Thursday on a motion to adjourn the house. At that time Mr. Speaker was of the opinion

Veterans Affairs
that the matter was not urgent and that it was also before the courts. In order to prevent any misunderstanding, I want to state quite frankly that it is not my intention to discuss or to refer to any matter now before the courts as far as the veterans' taxi owners association of Montreal is concerned.
There are a large number of veteran members in the house, and it is hardly necessary to say that they and all other members are much concerned with anything that pertains to the welfare of veterans. That was ably demonstrated during the two sessions when the committee on veterans affairs, consisting of some sixty members from all parts of the house, was sitting. Those members were able to sink and forget all party differences; they all worked together and produced a fine charter for the Canadian veteran.
I would point out that only a few days ago nearly a whole day was taken up in the house in discussing the welfare of 100 Polish girls who had recently come to this country. Those young girls were not citizens of Canada and Canada owed them absolutely nothing, morally or legally. The matter which I wish to discuss pertains to veterans who are Canadian citizens. They are all boys who served in the Canadian forces, many of them with long records overseas. They are veterans on whose behalf the government of Canada has expended large sums of money in the way of gratuities, reestablishment credits and other benefits. Let me say here that I do not think anyone in Canada begrudges one cent of the large sums that have been spent on behalf of our veterans.
When matters such as this have been brought before the house in the past I have observed that sometimes some hon. members are unkind enough to say that it is done for political purposes, political expediency or something of that kind. These veterans on whose behalf I wish to speak, some 500 in number, all live in Montreal. The majority of them are French and the remainder are of various nationalities but all are Canadian citizens. Until ten days ago I did not know there was such an association or company as the veterans' taxi owners association of Montreal, neither had I met any of these boys or had any communication with them.


Mr. KNIGHT:: Did the hon. member say that the majority of these veterans were French?


James Arthur Ross: They are Canadians.


George Stanley White: They are all veterans of the Canadian army.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that the majority were French.


Mr. HARTT:: That is right.


Angus MacInnis: The majority are Canadians.


Maurice Hartt: Why should the hon. member be so surprised about that?


Thomas Reid: You would not call me Scotch;
I am Canadian.


Maurice Hartt: Of Scotch descent.


Thomas Reid: I am a Canadian.


Maurice Hartt: You are of Scotch descent.


Thomas Reid: There is only one nationality, Canadian.


Maurice Hartt: I appreciate that.


George Stanley White: I regret that there has been any misunderstanding because I thought that I had made it clear that all these are veterans; I am sure I said they were Canadian citizens, that they had all served in the Canadian armed forces and that many of them had long records overseas. I proceeded to say that their number was in the neighbourhood of 500, that the majority of them were French-speaking and that the remainder were of various nationalities.


Maurice Hartt: That is all right.


George Stanley White: I am quite sure that is what I said. Is there any objection to that?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: May I explain my position? I simply wanted to know whether they were French citizens or French-speaking Canadians.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: They are Canadians.


George Stanley White: I am sorry, I cannot say whether they are French-speaking or English-speaking. In my opinion it does not make a particle of difference.


James Arthur Ross: They all fought for Canada.


George Stanley White: They are Canadian citizens. There has been set up in the government the Department of Veterans Affairs which is charged with the administration of all matters pertaining to veterans. I think it is right to say that in the administration of this department and in dealing with veterans affairs certain principles should be strictly adhered to, and I think three of those principles are most important. First, there should be absolute integrity on the part of all officials in D.V.A. in their dealings with veterans. Second, in the interpretation of legislation and regulations pertaining to veterans the spirit of the law rather than the exact letter of the law should be.followed.
Veterans Affairs

Third, the acts of all officials of D.V.A. in handling veterans matters should be binding on the Department of Veterans Affairs. I do not think anyone in the house can quarrel with those three simple principles.
In the spring of 1946 a considerable number of veterans in Montreal wished to be reestablished and become the owners of taxicabs to be operated in that city. One by one those boys went to the Montreal office of the D.V.A. where they were directed to an official who was in charge of car priorities, whose name was Leopold Ferland. He explained to each veteran the manner in which he would have to apply for the various credits, the necessity of obtaining a licence from the city and various other matters having to do with obtaining a taxicab and going into business. Apparently a great many veterans in the city of Montreal consulted the department and Leopold Ferland on this matter, because early in May all the veterans who had consulted D.V.A. received a telegram from Leopold Ferland asking them to attend an urgent meeting in the city of Montreal on the 13th of May. At this meeting some fifty odd veterans attended, and from D.V.A. there were two .officials, Leopold Ferland and a Mr. Levesque, who acted as chairman of the meeting. At this meeting there was considerable discussion of the veterans becoming reestablished and going into the taxicab business.
I am told that in the city of Montreal there are two taxicab associations, the Diamond taxi association and the LaSalle taxi association. Many of these boys were anxious to become associated with these two existing associations, and so it was decided that a small delegation should go to these two existing taxicab associations and sound them out whether or not they would be prepared to accept a fairly large number of veterans. Mr. Ferland of D.V.A. agreed to go with them as an official. Someone said it might be practical or wise, in order to put a little pressure on the taxicab companies already established, if the veterans would form their own association, but no action was taken at that time. Then it was suggested that each of the veterans present should pay the sum of S50. I am advised that on that occasion some thirty-eight veterans of those present paid $50 to Leopold Ferland, and at the same time Mr. Ferland advised the veterans that any veteran who did not have the money with him would be perfectly welcome to call at his office at D.V.A. the next day or whenever they had the money and make the payment.
I am further advised that the next day and the following days a fairly large number of veterans did call at Leopold Ferland's office

in D.V.A. and paid their $50. About two weeks later Mr. Ferland called another meeting, and at this meeting some 250 veterans turned up. At that time I am informed that some 200 veterans or thereabouts, maybe a few more or a few less, had paid their $50 to become associated with this new taxi association. It was agreed then that they would accept 250 veterans into the association. Such matters were discussed as insurance for the taxicabs and things of that sort. Mr. Ferland reported on his negotiations with the other two taxi companies, which was to the effect that only a few veterans could be absorbed. He reported on a trip to the city of Ottawa to consult certain D.V.A. officials regarding 250 priorities and explain to them various matters which he said would justify the officials in Ottawa as to a certain colour for the cabs, and one thing in particular, that the cabs should be all painted in the factory so that when they were delivered to a dealer there would be no possible chance of the dealer selling them to anyone else. I should have mentioned that at the second meeting Mr. Levesque of D.VA. was the presiding chairman.
Mr. Ferland called a third meeting in July, and at that time he gave no information to these 250 veterans that he had already obtained a charter in the province of Quebec for the incorporation of a joint stock company, nor was there any accounting given or made in any way of the various sums of money that had been paid in to him. The' question of insurance was further discussed, and it was agreed that the sum might range between $15 and $20 to be paid by each veteran to cover one large insurance policy. It was also decided that each veteran would pay in $20 a month as fees to this association. Many of the boys paid their insurance then or shortly afterwards, and they started to pay their $20 a month beginning from the time they received delivery of their taxicabs.
Things appeared to be going along very well, but in August of 1946 some of these veterans began to suspect that things were not as they should be. So some of them got together and called a meeting, and somewhere around 300 veterans attended. Mr. Ferland was present and Mr. Levesque was chairman of the meeting. It was at this meeting in August that for the first time these veterans were advised that a charter had been issued for the veterans' taxi owners association of Montreal. The charter was not produced. The reason given was that some amendments were being made by the department at Quebec. It was also brought to the

Veterans Affairs
attention of the veterans for the first time at the August meeting that the company had been capitalized at S26.000, divided as follows: ten ordinary shares, par value S100, 250 preferred shares, par value $100. Then a bombshell was sprung on them when they were advised that only the holders of the ten ordinary shares were allowed a vote in the company, and of these ten ordinary shares no fewer than six were held in the name of Leopold Ferland.
The veterans were then advised for the first time that they had nothing to do with this new company entitled the veterans' taxi owners association of Montreal, since none of them held a share in it, and if any one of them wanted to have any connection with or any say in the administration of this company they would have to buy a share at the price of $100. They were further advised that if they did not have the money small payments of $10 would be accepted. I am told that some forty-three veterans have paid the amount of $100 for their shares.
There was great confusion at this meeting. It broke up in great disorder. After that, many of these veterans tried to make some kind of personal investigation on their own behalf into the affairs of this taxi association and to find some trace of what had happened to their money. Apparently they were unable to get anywhere, and in December of last year a number of these veterans banded together and decided to raise a small amount of money among themselves to obtain legal advice and to go to the legal department of D.V.A. I understand that 391 of these veterans are in this association I speak of and that they have subscribed and put up somewhere around $7,000 for legal advice and things of that kind.
I do not wish to go over the long list of interviews they had with officials of D.V.A. I would simply mention that they consulted Colonel Hague of the department in Montreal. They saw a Mr. Campbell, who, I am advised, is in the legal department in Montreal. They were in Ottawa in January, when they had an interview with General Burns and Mr. Gunn. This matter was fully gone over in Montreal and fully gone over again in Ottawa, and at the suggestion of General Burns they were asked to see the solicitor general. I am advised that they did have an interview with him a"nd had a second interview with him in January in Montreal. In February they had a further interview with General Burns in Ottawa. I am told, whether it is correct or not, that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had made an investigation into this matter, and the veterans were advised by General Burns that D.V.A. could take no action, that
the charter had been granted by the government of Quebec and that anything Leopold Ferland had done in connection with the formation and operation of this veterans' taxi cab owners association had been done after he had left the Department of Veterans Affairs.
I am advised that Mr. Ferland either left or was discharged from the Department of Veterans Affairs some time in September, 1946. I am also advised that Mr. Levesque left D.V.A. some time in March, 1947. I may be wrong but that is the information that has been given. The veterans had a further interview with one Colonel Painchaud of the legal staff of the department in Ottawa. He went to Montreal, and once again, with Colonel Hague, the whole matter was gone over. Colonel Painchaud was unable to do anything for them. They had a final interview in May of this year in Ottawa with Mr. Woods, the deputy minister, General Burns and Mr. Gunn as well as Colonel Painchaud. Once again the whole matter was gone over from start to finish and they were told to return the next day to hear what decision had been reached.
The boys came back the next day and had an interview with Mr. Gunn and they say they were advised that D.V.A. could take no action in the matter. Mr. Gunn did tell them that if there was no publicity in the matter D.V.A. would attempt to interfere and endeavour to get control of this company or association from Mr. Ferland and that the money to be used in connection with it would have to be supplied by the veterans.
As I said at the beginning, I did not wish to refer in any way to the action of these veterans through their own counsel, or to any matters before the courts, but to mention only one thing, and that is that a sum in the neighbourhood of $200,000 was involved, apart from the amount spent by each individual veteran for his car.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was $26,000.


George Stanley White: Instead of having what they assumed they were getting, a mutual association which would be for the benefit of veterans, which would be controlled by them, in which they would have the.say and the direction, and in which, if there were any profits, they would share, they now find that they have a joint stock company in which they have no share or control. They are unable to buy any one of these ten shares which carry the vote. They are obliged to pay $100 for a share if they wish to have any connection of any kind with the company.
Veterans Affairs

I would point out that it was Mr. Fer-land, an officer of the Department of Veterans Affairs, who called all these meetings. He called only the boys who had consulted him at D.V.A., and a second official of D.V.A., Mr. Levesque, presided at all these meetings. Mr. Ferland assured them he would go with them as an official of the department to negotiate with these taxi companies, that he would come to Ottawa. He did go to the companies; he did come to Ottawa; he did get priorities and all the other things he had mentioned. He told them to come to his office and pay the moneys and the veterans went to his office and paid the moneys there. I do not think there can be any doubt that Mr. Ferland, during the time he was connected with D.V.A., led the veterans to believe that he was acting as an official of D.V.A., and that D.V.A. was behind them in looking after their interests, because I would point out that when it was time for the boys to return home there were certain officials in the army who had been given special training in regard to reestablishment and rehabilitation of our veterans, and these trained men travelled on the boats that were bringing the troops home. It was a part of their duties to explain to the returning veterans what Canada was going to do for them, to explain the matter of gratuities, reestablishment credits, educational benefits, V.L.A., and everything of that kind.
One of the things impressed on all these returning veterans was that when they returned home they should take no action without consulting D.V.A. They were especially warned of all the various rackets that would be developed and that an attempt would be made to put these rackets over them. I would refer to a small blue book entitled "Back to Civil Life." Probably every member has read it. This is the third edition, October 15, 1945, issued under the authority of the Right Hon. Ian A. Mackenzie. It is a creditable book, because it sets out in a clear and concise way all the information which the veteran would be looking for. It tells him how to take advantage of all the benefits Canada is providing for him. I would read two paragraphs at page 25:
80. Evidence has already come to light indicating that a few unscrupulous persons are prepared, by various means, to cheat veterans of their benefits under the War Service Grants Act. Veterans are therefore advised to consult the Department of Veterans Affairs before making any commitments involving the use of their reestablishment credits. Heavy penalties are imposed both on veterans and those who assist them in unauthorized use of the reestablishment credit.

81. The Department of Veterans Affairs is most anxious that any evidence indicating fraud be brought to the attention of its nearest office at once so that appropriate steps may be taken to eliminate the danger of veterans' reestablishment being impeded through the expenditure of their benefits under this act in other than their best interests.
It seems to me that these veterans were simply following out the sound advice that had been given them. It was emphasized that they should consult D.V.A. and that is exactly what they did. These boys, who consulted an official of the department in Montreal, instead of receiving the help and guidance to which they were entitled, received the very opposite. I would remind the house that under the War Service Grants Act of 1944, under sections 21, 22 and 23, provision is made for certain penalties to be imposed in connection with this very section that I have read from the little bluebook.
It may be all very well, Mr. Speaker, for those of us in the house who are lawyers to pick all sorts of flaws and draw many conclusions as to why this large number of veterans acted in this manner, why it was so easy for them to be defrauded and have this nefarious scheme put over on them. But I would say that in all fairness we must remember that when many of these boys enlisted they were very young. Many of them were just out of school. The experience of those who had jobs was somewhat limited. When these boys have followed the advice which was given to them, namely, to consult the Department of Veterans Affairs, and when they now find that they have been defrauded out of certain benefits which Canada has been providing for them, it is hardly fair now to put the blame on them.
To date, as far as I can find out, the Department of Veterans Affairs has taken no action in this matter. What the report of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police contains naturally I do not know, but the minister has access to that. I would submit that it is the responsibility of the Department of Veterans Affairs to rescue these veterans from the almost impossible position in which they find themselves today. It is also the responsibility of all members of this house, whether they are veteran members or not, to protest against this shameful and disgraceful conduct of an official of the Department of Veterans Affairs. I submit that if nothing is done we shall find that many of these veterans-and many of them are still very young-who gave splendid service overseas will lose the financial benefits of their gratuities and reestablish-

Veterans Affairs
ment credits, and will have little chance of being successfully reestablished in civil life.
As I said at the beginning, in the past it has always been the earnest wish of members of this house to protect the interests of the veteran in every possible way. I would urge the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) and the officials on the legal staff in his department to intervene before it is too late.
In conclusion, I should like to thank hon. members for the courteous and careful attention they have given me. I have tried to keep away from any reference to the court action and I have also tried to avoid saying any harsh words. It is hardly necessary to say to the veteran members of the House of Commons that, while these boys may reside in another province than the one in which I reside, we veterans do not recognize any race or creed. I especially appeal to the veteran members to support this not unreasonable request which I have made to the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the first observation made by my hon. friend was that I was not in the house last night. I wish to remind him that I was here at ten o'clock and later on in the evening-at which time he was not here-and I referred to his motion sympathetically.


George Stanley White: I
appreciate that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I say that I have no complaint whatsoever with respect to the observations made by the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White). However, he made one misstatement of fact, probably through inadvertence. He said that Mr. Ferland-and I shall deal with him in a moment or two-was in charge of car priorities. I wish to inform the hon. member and the house that there was no such work, duty or office in the Department of Veterans Affairs.
I shall now deal with this matter briefly if I may, and not in opposition to what my hon. friend has said, because we at once took such action as we could take. We have received representations on various occasions from members of the veterans' taxi owners association of Montreal. I must advise the house that at the present moment our department is unable to find that we have any right or authority to intervene in the situation which has developed. I wish to review the facts. I think my friend has been accurate in his review.


George Stanley White: Might I just say to the minister, before he reviews the facts, that I have carefully read the statement of claim which was drawn and filed by an outstanding legal counsel in Montreal, and most of my information is taken from that?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am not disagreeing with it at all. In the first place, Leopold Ferland during the early part of 1946 was a temporary employee of the department in the Montreal district. He was engaged in the reestablishment credit division and his duties included meeting veterans who required their reestablishment credit for various purposes. During the course of his employment Mr. Ferland came into contact with many veterans who desired to use their reestablishment credit for the purchase of automobiles to be used as taxis. The availability of reestablishment credit for such purposes is authorized, as my hon. friend well knows, by the War Service Grants Act. I think he himself quoted the section.
It is alleged-and we must be careful about these matters because they are before the courts-that Mr. Ferland seized the opportunity thus afforded of meeting veterans so inclined, to promote the idea that they would be able to conduct their taxi operations more successfully if they were organized into an association. It appears that Mr. Ferland was able to interest a large number of veterans in such organization and with their consent, express or implied, proceeded to obtain the incorporation of a company under the laws of the province of Quebec, known as the veterans' taxi owners association of Montreal. The structure of the company shows the incorporators to be Napoleon Bigras, Paul J. Ahela, Emilien	Montambault-all chauffeurs-and
Leopold Ferland, civil servant, of Montreal. The financial structure of the company consisted of $26,000, divided into ten common shares of $100 each and 250 preferred shares of a value of $100 each. It may be mentioned that these preferred shares do not carry, as my hon. friend knows, any voting rights.


Mr. FERGUSON:: May I ask a question just there? Is Mr. Ferland who appears in this charter a civil servant?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am coming to that. If my hon. friend will have a little patience, I will tell him what the situation is.
It is stated that all veterans who became members of this company did so by the acquisition of one share of the preferred stock, for which they were required to pay the stipu-
Veterans Affairs

lated par value. It is also stated that each veteran was required to pay to Mr. Ferland, as my hon. friend mentioned, as part of the promotional expenses of the plan the sum of $50. I say it is stated; I am not saying it is a fact; I do not know.
The plan of operation of the association was to supply to its members such services as telephone communication, certain garage service, station privileges and similar things, at a cost to each member of $20 a month, as stated by my hon. friend. It is stated that the association is now and has been in operation for several months. The complaint of the veterans referred to by my hon. friend seems to consist of charges that Mr. Ferland misrepresented to them the nature of their interest in the association. The complaining veterans said they believed that they were in fact obtaining a participating interest in the company whereby they would become entitled to a share in the profits. It is evident that all the}' have are the preferred shares, which, of course, consist only of a claim against the company for payment of the amount of the shares at some time in the future together with interest at three per cent per annum. The veterans also claim-and I am using these words very carefully-that they paid the sum of $50 to Mr. Ferland, as stated by my hon. friend,_ under misapprehension as to the purpose of such payment. It is also claimed by certain veterans that all the common shares have been issued to Mr. Ferland and his immediate associates, that Mr. Ferland has complete control over the operations of the association and that he is unwilling to account to the shareholders in any proper manner.
The activities of Mr. Ferland in connection with this business first came to the attention of the department in July, 1946, at which time Mr. Ferland was on sick leave; he was not on active duty in the department. As soon as he returned, his resignation was obtained. It seems clear that most of his activity connected with the development of this association and putting it into operation was carried on during the time of his sick leave. The action taken with respect to Mr. Ferland's resignation from the department was due to what at that time appeared to be a breach of the regulations, which prohibit any employee from engaging in private business during office hours. This is tantamount to dismissal* and was then and is still the only action open to the department.
From time to time during the last several months the department has received delega-*See also p. 4228, June 17

tions representing the dissentient veterans mentioned by my hon. friend. They have consistently requested the department to take some active steps leading to the solution of their difficulties. The department has thoroughly studied the whole situation, and has taken the stand that there were no grounds upon which the department as such could intervene. It was pointed out to the veterans that inasmuch as the department did not suffer financially, and inasmuch as no reestablishment credit money had been improperly granted-not by the department- the department has no status as a party to the dispute which has developed among members of this corporation. However, the department did request the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to investigate and report on the possible violation by Mr. Ferland of the War Service Grants Act or any other law. As the result of such report the department was confirmed in its opinion that if any action were taken it must be taken in the courts of the province of Quebec by those who hold themselves aggrieved. It is understood that the complaining veterans have engaged counsel, as mentioned by my hon friend, and commenced criminal proceedings in the courts of Montreal against Mr. Ferland It is further understood that these veterans have also engaged other counsel to commence civil proceedings in the appropriate courts of the province with the object of obtaining from Mr. Ferland a proper accounting and such other relief as may be available at law for their grievances. It may be pointed out that the employment of Mr. Ferland by the Department of Veterans Affairs was obtained through the usual channels of the civil service commission.
That is the complete story as far as I have been able to find it from the records of the department; but if the house would care to have the public accounts committee or any other committee go farther into it, 1 should be more than pleased. If there are any concrete suggestions as to what may be the responsibilities of the department through the defalcations or wrong procedure of one of our officials I should be very glad to have those suggestions sent to me and to make representations to my colleagues accordingly. I am in thorough agreement with what my hon. friend has said. I have not the slightest criticism to offer, and it was a great disappointment to us to see that one of our fairly senior officials was responsible for these indefensible practices. That is all I can say.


Howard Charles Green: What about Captain Levesque? The minister said nothing about him.

Veterans Affairs


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not know about
him at all. That was news to me tonight when it was mentioned by my hon. friend. I shall be glad to look into it. Has he not been dismissed also?


George Stanley White: I
could not say whether he has been dismissed or whether he resigned, but I understand that he left the department in March, 1947.


James Arthur Ross: Before the minister
sits down, in view of the statement that has been made, would he say when Major Ferland went on sick leave?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In July.


James Arthur Ross: He simply went on
sick leave last July?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am speaking subject to correction.


James Arthur Ross: It was approximately in July, 1946, then?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I must check on that.


James Arthur Ross: I should like to substantiate what my colleague the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White) has said this evening. I interviewed some of these boys when they were here, heard the statements they made, and saw the brief to which the hon. member has referred. While I am not going to take much time, or repeat all the details my hon. friend has placed before the house, I find difficulty in deciding where government responsibility ends in things of this sort. The hon. member read from the bluebook on civil reestablishment. Certainly all the young chaps in the armed forces were distinctly led to believe that all sorts of things would be done for them. In fact, during the war years I used to claim that they were being oversold by the department and the government on all the things that were to be done for them when they returned to this country.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And a lot has been lone for them.


James Arthur Ross: I quite agree that considerable has been done for them; but I say it was put across to them both overseas ar in this country as to what the government or the country was going to do for the boys when they came back.


Mr. ROWE:: Especially at election time.


James Arthur Ross: No; I am not talking about elections or anything like that right now. I definitely believe that, after all those years of propaganda, these boys had a right
to look to the Department of Veterans Affairs for guidance, as has been pointed o by my colleague. Naturally they thought anything they were told by the department, or anything coming from the department, would be protection for them.
Now then, this Major Ferland, according to this brief, in April, 1946, was located in an office of the Department of Veterans Affairs at 379 Common street, Montreal. The minister has not denied that. He was working there for the Department of Veterans Affairs. According to this brief, in April, 1946, Major Leopold Ferland was an officer with the Department of Veterans Affairs. Then there was this other officer-according to the brief a Captain Levesque-who also was an officer with the Department of Veterans Affairs at that time.
Then they spoke of another meeting about two weeks later than this first one, held in April, 1946, and a third meeting on July 9.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend is always fair, but is it correct to discuss what is before the courts at the present time?


James Arthur Ross: I am not referring to the courts at all. I am referring just to this particular case, and have not made reference to the courts. I do not know anything about the courts, but I do know about this case. The minister said that the company had, to date, about $26,000; but he will readily realize that these boys are out of pocket much more than that-apart from their gratuities or rehabilitation allowances.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


James Arthur Ross: Well, a number of these boys told me that they could prove that some 500 veterans were out of pocket approximately $230,000. I have only their statement. I have not the details, and I am not now going into details. I am not asking the house to take those figures.


Mr. HARRIS (Grey Bruce):: I should like to know.


James Arthur Ross: I have only the statements made by a number of those boys. It was Mr. Sweet who told me. All I am doing is giving the house the statement of those boys.
There is something wrong somewhere; nobody denies that. I am not stating exactly how much they are out, but I am giving the figures they gave me. They were led into this on the basis of good faith by an official of the Department of Veterans Affairs of the government of the day.
Veterans Affairs

After what I have said, I believe they have some right to think they were working with the responsibility of the government behind them. In view of all that has been done, and all that was sent out to those boys during their years of service, they have a right to think that.
Another chap-and I could give the name if the minister wished to have it-claims that he spent five and a half years overseas and that he has invested $2,500 in this concern. I am not, of course, saying that all that amount consists of gratuities and rehabilitation allowances. He stands to lose most of it, as things are today.
I have said I do not want to repeat details, but I wish to substantiate the argument so well set out this evening. The point I want to make is this, referring to page 25 in that book, that there was a gesture made toward all the young men and women of the armed services throughout the war years which would lead them to look to officials of that department for guidance, and to believe that their funds would be protected. In the same article they were warned against anybody else who might get hold of their funds.
The point I make is-and I have no doubt the minister is as much concerned as we are- that I am wondering where government responsibility ends in this matter. That is the point. I am of the opinion that, since civil servants undertook to develop these funds, even if they were comrades of the past war, by virtue of the fact that they were employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs of this, government there should be governmental responsibility somewhere toward those boys. That is the only point I wish to make.
I had a great deal more detail which I could have pointed out, but it would be only repeating what has already been said. I wish to impress that upon the house; and I should like to impress the further fact that this is a government responsibility to some extent. I am not able to say just where it should end.


Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorktoni):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure every hon. member would support the statement made by the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White) in protest against what appears to be a betrayal of trust by an official of the Department of Veterans Affairs. I do not think there is any department in which there should be more' careful supervision, and there should be a close check to prevent this kind of thing. The men who put their money into this venture did so in good faith. These men, 
under the circumstances which exist today, where there are several hundred of them, are looking for redress.
The minister says action was taken last year. I understand that Mr. Ferland was dismissed by the department in September; but the information I have is that another officer who, I believe, was in charge of rehabilitation of crippled veterans-Captain Levesque-continued his activities with the company up until March.
I also understand that in February the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were called in to make an investigation. The minister stated that action was taken. On February 23 the mounted police were called off. They must have given some report to the department at that time.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They were not called off, I can assure the hon. member.


George Hugh Castleden: Well, they completed their investigation, but-*


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I must ask for the withdrawal of that remark. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police were never called off by our department.


George Hugh Castleden: They did not continue their investigation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is a matter entirely for their discretion. We do not control the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We gave instructions to go ahead and investigate.


George Hugh Castleden: They probably completed their investigation, then, on February 23. They must have tabled, some report with the government. What action was taken on that report when it was tabled? It seems to me they still had a responsibility in their work until Mr. Levesque was dismissed, or given his release.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I will be glad to look into that point. I have not the precise information at hand at the present time. But I do know this, if I may interrupt, that the attitude of the deputy minister all the way through was to pursue this matter to the very limit.


George Hugh Castleden: I was also pleased to hear the minister say tonight that they were considering further action. But we want to know what he will do further. I would suggest this, that surely veterans in this situation require the assurance from him that the government will make good any losses these men have suffered as a result of what appeared to be a breach of the trust which.

Veterans Affairs
they placed in officials of this department. To the extent that that is given, the matter can be cleared up. That is the least we can expect from the department under the circumstances.


Mr. DENTON MASSEY (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that perhaps I have had more to do with veteran reestablishment than most in this chamber; and the situation which arises out of this debate puts,
I think, the Department of Veterans Affairs in a most invidious position.
During the latter days of the war, certainly throughout the Royal Canadian Air Force, there was a concerted effort, both overseas and later in Canada, to lead the then becoming veterans on the right path. At Warrington, in the United Kingdom, there were no less than sixteen personnel counsellors who interviewed upwards of seventy per cent of the returning veterans. Later, in the release centres of Canada-and once again I am speaking about the Royal Canadian Air Force-each veteran was interviewed before he left the service. At my own release centre in Toronto, not only did he have that interview, but also an address was given to him by a representative of the Better Business Bureau, warning him against this sort of practice which allegedly has developed in Montreal. Further than that, there were scores of personal interviews conducted Ipoth by myself and my officers with these lads, and in many instances we were able to save them 'rom getting into something which was not j;ood. I am safe in saying that in 100 per cent of all cases, we confidently referred these lads to the D.V.A.
The hon. member for Hastings-Peter-borough (Mr. White) has quoted tonight from the booklet "Back to Civil Life". That is an excellent publication and he could have gone on with his quotations. That booklet was more or less a bible for the lads. Certainly it was emphasized to them that before they lid anything they should see the D.V.A. to ,<now what they are doing. I am speaking now as a former serving and commanding officer and we, to use service language, "plugged" the D.V.A. as hard as we could and tried to build it up as a responsible organization, a department created, not only to look after the interests and needs of the veteran, but to protect him against those who wished to deprive him of that which he had been given and had so richly earned.
We have the situation here where these lads went lo a representative of the D.V.A.,
in fact to two of them and, again using the language of the service, they have been "let down". That is a serious reflection upon the department and, therefore, the department must take action. The minister has said tonight that action has been taken, that one officer left the service last year and that another left the service as late as March of this year. He says the matter virtually rests there, but that is not good enough. It is unfair to the other officials of this department which we are discussing tonight. It puts them all, to a greater or less degree, under a certain amount of suspicion. Can we trust the D.V.A.? That is the challenge to the minister. It goes much farther than this one case.
To remove it from that realm for a moment into the business realm, if a company is a representative company, a good company and has a name which is valuable; if it desires to protect its good will, and one of its accredited representatives misrepresents that company to such a degree that a customer or client is hurt, retribution is made as rapidly as possible. That is the way in which good will is maintained. It is not just a question of the customer always being right; there can be no question but that the veteran is right. It seems to me that the challenge is clear for the government, not only the department, to give immediate consideration to complete retribution to these lads, not only for the sake of the lads themselves, but for the sake of the name of the Department of Veterans Affairs and all that that implies for the future The challenge is clear. Let the minister act quickly.


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, let us 'be fair about this thing-


Howard Charles Green: That is all we are asking.


Humphrey Mitchell: Up to now it has been veterans only who have discussed this thing. I understand that the people who have been charged before the courts are veterans. It may be that what every hon. member has said is correct, but is it fair to prejudge the case? One of the fundamental laws of our country is that a man is not guilty until proven guilty by a jury of his peers.


Denton Massey: Why were the men dismissed from the department?


Humphrey Mitchell: If a man in any department works out of hours, he is acting contrary to the civil service regulations. This session we have heard talk of human rights;
Veterans Affairs

let us have some human rights in this regard. My hon. friend, who is an old air force man, talks about counsellors. I am an old navy man. We were counselled not to play crown and anchor, but we used to play it just the same and we lost lots of money, or at least I did. Let us get a proper focus. Do not let us prejudge these men as guilty, even though they may be guilty from your point of view, until they have gone through the procedure of the courts of this country which, in my judgment-I do not except Great Britain in this regard-are the fairest on God's green earth.
I think that is the only attitude we can take at the moment. Let the courts have their say. Let these men whom some hon. members opposite think are guilty have their day in court and not prejudge them in the open as some of us are trying to do this evening. Let them be tried by a judge and a jury of their peers if necessary. Then, if they are guilty, we can discuss the matter again. Let me say this:	There is no legislation on earth can make a fool into a wise man.


An hon. MEMBER:: You should know.


Humphrey Mitchell: Let me say this to my good socialist friends-[DOT]


Mr. COLDWELL:: We did not say a word. We were just listening, but we were thinking though.


Humphrey Mitchell: Some people find it difficult to think. Let me say to my good socialist friends that some of the thoughts which they have expressed in this House of Commons they will find most difficult to enforce should they ever-and they never will-be charged with the responsibility of administering the affairs of this country. I plead with my returned friends this evening to give these individuals, guilty as they may be from their own personal points of view, the rights to which they are justly entitled, to appear before the courts of this country to be tried by a judge and jury and found to be guilty or innocent. Then we can talk about the matter.


William Ross Macdonald: When this discussion started this evening it was mentioned that the matter was before the courts, but the Speaker did not know just what was before the courts. The Minister .of Veterans Affairs has stated that there is a criminal and a civil action pending. It is difficult for me to determine when hon. members are discussing matters which are before the courts, but I think we have been quite close to it at times. I do not want to rule any discussion out of order, but I would ask hon. members to be careful not to discuss a matter which is now before the courts and which might affect anyone concerned in a criminal or civil action. As I say, it is most difficult to determine just when we are discussing matters which are sub judice, which all hon. members know is improper to do. I ask for the cooperation of all hon. members.


Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I have been extremely interested in the rehabilitation of veterans ever since they began coming back from overseas. When I say that I am cognizant of' the fact that every member in this house is also much concerned with the welfare of the veterans, having in mind the great sacrifices which some of those men made for this country. I was surprised at the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) making the remark he did, and I just want to refer briefly to that in passing


Humphrey Mitchell: Have you never played crown and anchor?


Charles Edward Johnston: I am not confessing my sins tonight. The Minister of Labour went to some pains to state to the house that there should be fair play in this matter and that everybody should have his day in court. It struck me that the Minister of Labour was endeavouring to have the government evade their responsibilities and nicely get out from under the difficulty they found themselves in.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not think anybody can fairly accuse me of trying to get out from under anything. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) paid me a compliment in that regard this afternoon. So far as I am concerned, I am not getting out from under anything. The hon. member is imputing motives.


Charles Edward Johnston: No.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, he is.


Charles Edward Johnston: I said that is what it looked like.


Humphrey Mitchell: If the hon. member wants to talk politics let him do it outside this house.


Charles Edward Johnston: The Minister of Labour cannot put over anything like that tonight. He has had his day in court and now he should sit down and listen to those who are putting forward their views. It seems to me quite

Veterans Affairs
clear-and I think the Minister of Labour has overlooked this-that the government definitely acknowledged its responsibility in this matter when it discharged its former employees. I believe that the Department of Veterans Affairs are attempting to be fair, but when thej- went so far as to have representations from these different organizations come to them they did know that there was a transaction taking place that was not in the interests of the veterans. When the government has so persistently advocated that all veterans should accept the services and advice of the D.V.A. and act on their advice and thereby avoid these pitfalls which are now apparent, the government definitely recognized the dangers that lay ahead.
In this particular case it is clear to anyone who has listened to the facts presented tonight that the government did recognize that they were involved and, once having recognized their responsibility, they cannot lightly brush this whole thing aside by discharging an employee or two. If everybody is to have his day in court, as the Minister of Labour has suggested, the fair thing to have done was not to discharge those men. That was not far, according to the interpretation of the Minister of Labour. These men should have had their day in court-


Humphrey Mitchell: If I may interrupt my hon. friend, I do not know whether he is conversant with the civil service regulation that if a civil servant wants to engage in activities for gain outside his regular office hours he has to have the permission of his minister. These people did not, and so they w-ere out.


Charles Edward Johnston: As I understood the brief presented by hon. members to my right, the transaction began in office hours, and meetings were called while the department was employing these men.


Humphrey Mitchell: Under the regulation governing civil servants, an employee cannot work out of office hours for monetary return without the permission of the minister. If he does, he is out. That is all. He does not have to do anything wrong necessarily.


Mr. KNOWLES:: But this took place in office hours.


Charles Edward Johnston: The minister is not implying, is he, that the Department of Veterans Affairs discharges a man if he has not done something wrong. If that is the attitude of the department, my opinion of the department is lower.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I interrupt my hon. friend? I think it would be in the interests of the whole house to refer this matter to the public accounts committee, finish this debate, and get on with the business of the house.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am coming to that. I have it here in my notes.
The second place where the government recognized their responsibility-and I am of the opinion that they did recognize their responsibility-was when they asked the R.C.M.P. to investigate. I take it that the department asked the R.C.M.P. to investigate this matter while Mr. Ferland and Mr. Levesque were still in the employ of the department. If that is so, they definitely recognized their responsibility there, believing that these veterans were being defrauded. Then, having taken the advice of the R.C.M.P., to whose report they had access but of course we have not, they discharged these employees, thereby endeavouring to wash their hands of the whole affair. That does not seem to me to be the proper way to deal with a situation of this kind.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs has suggested that this whole matter be referred to the public accounts committee. I am not sure whether I agree with that suggestion. I have been on the public accounts committee for a number of years, but in this case it seems to me that the government has a direct responsibility and that it should not be shifted on to a parliamentary committee-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I submit that this whole discussion is out of order because the ease is sub judice. I have made the suggestion that this case be referred to the public accounts committee, and that suggestion has not been accepted by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston). I raise the point of order that this discussion is out of order.


Charles Edward Johnston: Surely every speaker is not out of order just because he disagrees with the minister. That would be a new rule if that were so. I did not say I was absolutely opposed to having this matter referred to the public accounts committee. I was objecting to its being referred to the committee at this time, because that would be an excellent way for the government to get out from under its responsibility in this matter by shifting it to a parliamentary committee.


Humphrey Mitchell: Let us have some decency in this discussion. Do not forget that there are veterans on both sides of the house. My hon. friend has suggested switching this matter

Veterans Affairs

from the House of Commons to a committee while the case is sub judice. That does not add up.


Charles Edward Johnston: That was the suggestion of the Minister of Veterans Affairs.


Humphrey Mitchell: Some of my hon. friends who are applauding loudest are prejudging this question.


Agar Rodney Adamson: We are not prejudging the question. I love the Minister of Labour; I just adore him, he is so charmingly illogical.
I have listened carefully to the argument tonight and all we are trying to do is this. We say that the government has a responsibility toward these veterans, and the Department of Veterans Affairs has a responsibility toward these veterans entirely irrespective-


William Ross Macdonald: Order. Is the hon. member speaking to a point of order?


Agar Rodney Adamson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There is a definite point of order which the Minister of Veterans Affairs has raised as to this discussion being out of order because the case is sub judice. The question raised by the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White) has nothing to do with the courts. The point he is bringing out is that the Department of Veterans Affairs has a responsibility toward these veterans, absolutely separate from any court proceedings taking place in Montreal. That is the question before the house, and I submit, sir, that it is entirely in order.


William Ross Macdonald: So long as hon. members confine their remarks to veterans affairs and refrain from references either to the civil action or to the criminal proceedings, they may continue to discuss the subject. I think hon. members will realize the difficult position in which the Speaker finds himself. The debate has gone on for some time and I am not altogether satisfied that it has been quite in order, but I would ask hon. members to cooperate and endeavour not to discuss the matter in any way that will relate it to the court proceedings.


Charles Edward Johnston: I appreciate your
difficulty, Mr. Speaker, and I wish to have my remarks conform to the rules, but we have the minister calling me to order and asking you to make a ruling because I said that this matter should not be sent to a committee, and then we have the Minister of Labour saying that I am out of order and asking for another ruling on the ground that it should not be sent to the committee. You are indeed in a difficult position. I did not make either of those suggestions.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who did?


Charles Edward Johnston: The Minister of Veterans Affairs suggested that it should go to the committee and the Minister of Labour said that it should not, and both said that I was out of order because I said that it should not go to the committee at this time. There would be less discussion if the two ministers would get together and decide what to do. I did say, Mr. Speaker, that I thought the situation was too serious for the government to send it to the public accounts committee, thereby putting the responsibility on a committee of this house. I think the government definitely showed their responsibility in this connection when, first they discharged these men and, second, when they caused the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to make an investigation. I suggest that, in all fairness to the veterans concerned and to the Department of Veterans Affairs as well, the government should make an investigation of their own, and not a parliamentary committee investigation. They should make the decision and, if that decision is not satisfactory to both parties, then it will be time-that would be the opportune time-to have the whole matter referred to the public accounts committee for further investigation.
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead): Mr. Speaker, sometimes when I attempt to address the house appeals are made to you to restrain me from speaking, but I hope that this evening the topic of my observations will be free from controversy. You have been asked to preclude this debate from going farther because there is a case before the courts of Montreal. I have learned from the public journals that there is a case in the criminal courts and in the civil courts, but that is not the case concerning which I now wish to say a few words. My observations will be directed to the case of the veterans against the department of my right hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie). No such case is before the courts.
There are some subjects, as you well know, Mr. Speaker, concerning which the right hon. gentleman and I cannot always agree. Politics is one of them. But I must say that I have never been to the minister with a question in which the veterans were concerned when I did not have a sympathetic hearing and did not get all that it was humanly possible for him to do.
It is not my function to advise either the government or the house as to the legal rights of veterans against the department. At law-* and I see that the solicitor general was

Veterans Affairs
recently conversing with the right hon. gentleman-I doubt whether there are rights which can be enforced in the courts. But the facts are that these taxi drivers, 400 or 500 of them, returned men, have lost large sums of money.


Mr. JEAN:: Has that been proved? That is the point.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is the point before the courts.


John Thomas Hackett: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that 400 or 500 taxi drivers in Montreal have lost large sums of money-


An hon. MEMBER:: Claim to have lost.


John Thomas Hackett: -and they have lost
these sums of money because an employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs was false to his mandate. Someone may say, are you going to prejudge this servant of the department? Well, I will say that if I do prejudge him I am but following the example of the department which dismissed him summarily for his participation in this case. But the point I wish to make is that these men claim that they have lost these sums of money because this employee of the department was false to his mandate. If this employee was the cause of their loss, as they contend, it was not the fault of the veterans; it was the fault of those who selected the man and put him in the position which enabled him to be false to his duty and the veterans.
That may not give rise to a claim at law. Undoubtedly the department did not engage this man for the specific purpose of betraying enabled him to be false to his duty and the veterans.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: These employees were not appointed by the department at all but by the civil service.


John Thomas Hackett: 
Humphrey Mitchell: It should sound reasonable to a lawyer.
83166-259J


John Thomas Hackett: It sounds reasonable
enough. The difficulty is that 500 veterans, every one of whom every man and woman in Canada wishes to help, have been put in the position that if they must wait for the final decision of the court, it will be too late.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will my hon. friend
forgive me? I hate to interrupt him.


John Thomas Hackett: The minister does not
disturb me in the least.
Mr. MACKENZIE.:	According to the
statement of the men themselves, they are all working and earning a living with the cars purchased with their money, part of which may have been derived from war service gratuities or reestablishment credits.


Humphrey Mitchell: They are all working.
That is the point.


John Thomas Hackett: I do not think my right hon. friend will wish to rest his case on such a weak and wavering reed as that. My right hon. friend knows-and his heart is too big for him to contradict it-that most of these men are in a serious plight. Their earnings and the bulk of their gratuities have been pledged and lost through the duplicity of an agency of his department.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is no proof of that.


John Thomas Hackett: If they must await the
outcome of the trials, relief will come too late and this group of valiant soldiers will have to suffer a damage which cannot be made good.
Now, what is my suggestion? We have attempted, whenever occasion arose, to be helpful to those who answered the call of duty. As a country we have done well by our veterans. Daily we are sending aid abroad, even to the enemy, even to those who fought against us, because we are proud of our humanitarianism.- Here is a group of veterans who have suffered through the blighting of their hopes, if in no other way, as no other group of veterans has ever suffered in Canada. I am going to suggest to the right hon. gentleman that this matter be not shoved aside. I do not think he wants that to be done. I am asking him to give play to those generous sentiments for which he is known in the house, to bring into being some kind of committee or commission which can find out how much these men have lost, and to bring before the house some kind of legislation which will make them whole and do that immediately. But there is a danger in attempting legislation of this kind unless it be surrounded with all possible safeguards. The
Supply-Transport

investigation should be minute and complete, and should be undertaken immediately. It should be made clear that the government is not responsible to everyone who is damaged by reason of the acts of a government employee. But this is an exceptional case. This is the case of men who have returned from overseas service who not only have been invited but have been supplicated not to be led astray by the ordinary businessman or by the ordinary shark on the street; they have been asked to go and place their confidence in the right hon. gentleman's department in order that they might have there the protection and the direction to which their bravery and their overseas service entitled them. They came and gave to the department all the confidence to which the house believes it is entitled. It happens that there was someone there who was false to his mandate, but we cannot let it go forth that our veterans are to suffer in a group numbering five hundred merely because a wolf in sheep's clothing has found his way into the fold of the right hon. gentleman opposite.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is an understatement.


John Thomas Hackett: The way to deal with
this is to set up a commission or committee tomorrow or the next day. Let my right hon. friend find two, three or four competent people to sit on it. Let them sift the facts. Let them make restitution to these men. Let the case in the courts proceed. If the plaintiffs succeed, let there be given back to the government whatever is recouped or recovered at the end of one, two, three or four years. But in the meantime the veteran, he who has fought, he who has suffered, he who has been wronged should be enabled to recover now that which was improperly taken from him through the abuse of the confidence he placed in the Department of Veterans Affairs.


Humphrey Mitchell: May I ask-


John Thomas Hackett: If the hon. gentleman will resume his seat for a moment, I will make way for him very shortly.


Humphrey Mitchell: I just wanted to ask a question; that is all.


John Thomas Hackett: I ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs in this case, and possibly only in this case, to let his big heart dominate the other factors which are prominent in his generous make-up.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
Jf02. Departmental administration, $544,000.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I would ask that the item stand.


Mr. BRACKEN:: Before the suggestion of the minister is acceded to, I wish to ask some questions. How many departments are now in supply and how many are not?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am speaking from memory now, but my recollection is that we have fifteen departments in supply before this item is called. This would mean sixteen departments in supply, and four more to be called.


John Bracken: The minister advises that fifteen or sixteen departments are now in supply.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Sixteen.


John Bracken: And that some three or four remain. He is asking now that another department be put in supply. I do not think anybody in this house wishes to delay its work, but I cannot understand why the government desires to have more departments called when practically no estimates at all have been voted. As I see it, when these departments are all called, the government could then go into supply in the latter half of the week without anybody having the right to debate. As long as some of these departments are not in supply, when the government moves to go into supply early in the week, any grievance anyone may have may be raised at that time. I do not think that right should be taken away from the opposition.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I say a word just here?


John Bracken: Yes. All I want to know is why the government desires to have more of these departments called. If you need sixteen now, why have you been taking them two or three at a time over the last two o-three months? Why not do it all at once and have done with it?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We tried to do it several times. May I again give my hon. friend the assurance that any Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, when the question of supply is contested and a request is received from them, we can call one of these items still remaining, at their request, so that they can vent any grievances they may desire to present; and that will apply until the last two or three days of the session. I hope my hon. friend will be satisfied with that.


John Bracken: That is a purely voluntary offer which I have no doubt the govern-

Supply-Health and Welfare
ment will honour, but we do not want to be in the position of having to ask your favour when we -want to speak.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is not a favour; it is a promise.


John Bracken: Then I ask another question. Can the minister say why, when there are fifteen or sixteen departments in supply, they want to put in another one?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: To help expedite the business of this house.


John Bracken: Already we have fifteen or sixteen departments to deal with, and you have five or six or seven or possibly eight weeks to go in order to get the other departments in.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I hope not. My hon. friend may recall that last year we held up one department, legislation, with the promise I made tonight to the opposition and the other parties in the house, that if they decided to raise any question on going into supply on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday they would have the absolutely free and unfettered right of discussion on that item; and I think that .meets the situation.


John Bracken: Then this is a perfectly fair question. Will the minister tell me what advantage it will be to the house by way of expediting the business to have sixteen departments in supply rather than fifteen? I do not know, and I should like to be told.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I can tell my hon. friend that I have been here for nearly twenty years; and it has been my experience, not only when we were over there but when we were over here, that in the last week or ten days of every session whatever government may be in office is severely criticized for not having made greater progress in supply. I can also tell my hon. friend there is no sinister motive at all behind this. If my hon. friends do not want another department after tonight we shall just leave them as they are.


John Bracken: But you have not
answered my question.


Mr. POULIOT:: I just want to put a question that may be answered the next time the estimates are brought in. Last year enormous amounts of money were voted for the assistance of returned men. Several acts were passed; I do not know what chapters they are, but you, Mr. Chairman, know the acts I am referring to. What I want to know the next time the estimates are submitted to the committee is, how many members of the
Canadian army have been given the advantages of the legislation passed last year, and how many members of any other army, the imperial army or any other, have been given the same advantages? I want to know also to what extent the privileges given-


William Henry Golding: Order. The item before the committee is 402, providing that $544,000 be granted to His Majesty for transport, departmental administration.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, I know.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On a question of privilege, if I may reply at once to my hon. friend, as soon as the Department of Veterans Affairs is in supply I shall be very glad to answer all the questions my hon. friend has mentioned. It is not in supply as yet. This is the Department of Transport.


Jean-François Pouliot: We are before the committee now, and I do not a,sk that the question be answered this evening. I do not want to back the minister to the wall.


William Henry Golding: Order. We are on transport; departmental administration.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move that the item stand.


John Bracken: Might I get clearly from the minister what he proposes now? He is asking that one more department be put in supply, and he is saying that the remainder-?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will be left over until after consultation with the leaders of the various groups in the house.


John Bracken: Thank you very much.


Jean-François Pouliot: This is not the estimates; this is the cinema, the moving pictures.
Item stands.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE

[Stage Direction]
200. Departmental administration, $531,954.
Mr. TIMMINS:: When the committee rose last evening, Mr. Chairman, I was dealing with the subject of cancer research, and I should like to direct my remarks to that subject for a short time again this evening. I point out that in the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare for this year there is no item whatever with respect to cancer research. Last evening the minister said the matter of fighting cancer must engage our fullest attention, but I say now it has received no attention from this government, at least up to January, 1947. Whatever cancer research has been carried on has been done by the national research council. A return filed by the Department of National Health and
Supply-Health and Welfare

Welfare shows that in the eleven years from 1935 to 1945 inclusive, some $4,500 has been spent on research. During the same time 142,000 people died from cancer. As far as I can make out, this government has spent no other money on cancer research. The King George V silver jubilee fund has been in existence for twelve years. The moneys subscribed to that fund by public subscription amount to S490,000, according to the minister last evening.


Mr. MARTIN:: Approximately.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: The National Cancer Institute of Canada was formed in January of this year; and according to the minister's statement last evening it will receive from the fund $150,000 a year for the next three years. That will pretty well use up the fund. The point I wish to make is, what does the government itself intend to do? What contribution is the government going to make to this all-important subject of cancer research? Last evening the minister stated the matter correctly when he said that he had no official connection with the National Cancer Institute of Canada, and that goes for his department as well; so that the institute is on its own.
I take it that all cancer research in Canada will come directly or indirectly under the national cancer institute. With respect to the return to which I referred for a time last evening, some figures were given by the minister or his department on May 29, 1947, having to do with the amount of money spent in cancer research through the national research council; and as I have pointed out already, that sum was less than $4,500. As I understand the procedure, having regard to the national cancer institute which has been brought into being, it will be that the laboratories of the various medical colleges throughout Canada, institutions having proper facilities. and any person qualified to conduct medical research and having the necessary facilities, may apply for a grant in aid, and, if approved, the money will be granted.
But where is the money to come from? From press reports it appears that part of this annual sum of $150,000 will go for administration, and to the Canadian cancer society for public education. In addition, there is the administration of the fund, the setting up of local administrative centres, a national cancer survey; and then the remainder which according to press reports would amount to about $90,000, will be for research. I am pointing out that, of this $150,000 about which the minister told us last night, according to the material I have, there will be only about $90,000 for cancer research in 1947.
It seems perfectly obvious that the universities of Canada which have already taken up this work, private scientists who have the equipment and facilities for doing the work, and research laboratories which will apply for a share of the fund, will more than absorb this paltry balance of $90,000.
I have it on good authority from a friend of mine in Toronto who is interested in the work, that already applications for upwards of $200,000 for research purposes have been applied for this year by responsible institutions. So that' it is perfectly clear that the $90,000 which will be left in the hands of the institute will not be nearly enough with which to make much research progress this year. It will be a national calamity and will deal a dreadful blow to the work of the national cancer institute if in the first year of its existence the funds available are inadequate to the extent of not making it worthwhile for the various institutions to prepare a programme to take on the work, and to employ young scientists to do the work over a period of years. I believe the responsibility to find the money with which to find the cause and cure of cancer, over and above the sum which has already been subscribed by the people of Canada, rests upon the dominion government.
It seems to me important to point out that this research work cannot be handled on a year to year budget basis. Research laboratories require the brains of the best young scientists in Canada. We do not want to let them slip over to the United States where they can probably get larger salaries and more continuity of employment, through our shortsightedness in not providing the institute with a fund which will be sufficient to permit it to look ahead and to plan for, let us say, five years.
Last night the minister mentioned a three-year plan. He mentioned it only in respect of paying over the money from the King George V fund to the institute. But I am suggesting there must be continuity to the extent of a five-year plan, if the national cancer institute is to survive, and if it is to be useful to the people of Canada. The fact of the matter is that the government cannot afford to let the institute only flutter along in 1947. Any laboratory, any medical college, any research bureau permitted to take part in this work should be placed in a position to lay down a comprehensive plan so that they can tell young scientists who engage in this work that there is some continuity of employment for them.
Let us assume that the minimum sum required in 1947 or in any future year by

Supply-Health and Welfare
the institute for research purposes will be approximately $250,000. That would be $100,000 more during the next three years than the institute can obtain from the King George V silver jubilee fund.
Again I ask the question: where is this additional money to come from? It must not be assumed that the provinces have not done a great deal of work in relation to cancer research. The fact is that they have been greatly alive to the problem, and have been busy at work. In this connection I should like for a moment to refer to the record of the various provinces with respect to cancer research and treatment.
In British Columbia the annual deficit of the British Columbia cancer institute is made up by the province, in addition to supplying certain treatment facilities. Alberta supplies all clinical, diagnostic and treatment facilities, with the exception of the cost of hospitalization, medicine and transfusion. Manitoba supplies treatment and pathology facilities. Saskatchewan provides complete free treatment for cancer, including X-rays, radium, surgery and hospital costs, under a specialized clinic. Ontario has contributed a grant of several hundreds of thousands of dollars toward the Ontario cancer treatment and research foundation. The Quebec government has made sizable grants for the purchase of radium, and for treatment and research. The other provinces have all assisted in a lesser degree.
I say: Let the provinces look after diagnosis, treatment and radium, and let the rest of the work in respect of finding a cure and a remedy for cancer be looked after by the dominion government, to the extent of whatever amount may be needed by the institute.
The point is that cancer research is a national problem. We cannot permit cancer research in Canada to be sporadic. It must be directed with intelligence, diligence and forcefulness. That, of course, is the express purpose of the formation of the national cancer institute.
I have read carefully the speech made last night by the minister, and I find nothing in it that promises anything more than real interest and attention. The closest the minister comes to extending any help from his department appears at page 4011 of Hansard, where he says:
Whatever assistance comes from the dominion or provincial government-and I am not now making any statement with regard to contributions; that I will do at the proper time-it will be recognized, I am sure that whatever assistance is given a large sum of money will be needed over the period, and there will be large sums needed if the research projects contemplated by the institute are to be undertaken.
There is nothing anywhere in the minister's speech-and I am sure he will pardon my saying this-which says directly that the department will assume any responsibility in respect of this work. Probably he will have some answer for me on this point, but I am pointing out to him that, carefully as I have gone through his remarks, I cannot find anywhere any suggestion that the government will supplement the funds of the national cancer institute.
I fail to see where the Department of National Health and Welfare is putting any effort into this matter of cancer research. The record does not show it. I am not making any attack on the minister. As a matter of fact he has been in the department for only about six months. I am simply tidying up the record in that particular. I am asking, "Where do we go from here, with respect to the funds which will be needed to carry on the work of the national cancer institute?" The $500,000 was contributed to the King George V silver jubilee fund by the people of Canada. Unless the government is prepared to give the Department of National Health and Welfare a substantial amount in this year's estimates, over and above the jubilee fund donation, to take care of research under the national cancer institute, then the federal government had better get out of the field of cancer research. After all, as the minister has pointed out, this is a national problem. We should have some understanding from the minister or from the cabinet to assure us that there will be an appropriation sufficient for these research requirements of 1947. The minister-and I say this in all kindness-has taken a considerable amount of kudos for the setting up of the national cancer institute. I think he is entitled to that, having regard to the fact that he brought together the various interests which brought the national cancer institute into being. He has made some laudatory remarks with respect to his department and the interest they are taking, but I say in all kindness that there is nothing here which says directly that the government is going to take a real hand in connection with providing further funds to see that the work of the national cancer institute is carried on. In that regard I should like to tell a little story. It is about the headmaster of a college who was addressing his boys as they were graduating from college. He said, "As you go out into the world you will find two classes of people, those who do the work and those who take the credit. I would advise you to get into the first class because there's less competition."
Supply-Health and Welfare

I fay to the minister that we on this side of the house are prepared to get behind him. We think this work is just as necessary as he said it was last night. We do not think the national cancer institute can do the work it is intended to do of-coordinating all efforts in research in the Dominion of Canada unless further funds are provided, so that from 1947 onward it can look after the applications which I understand are being made upon it by institutions and medical colleges throughout Canada for the necessary funds for purposes of research. If the minister asks for supplementary moneys for this year and supplementary years I think he will get it. It is not a matter that should be dealt with from year to year. I do not know how you go about the matter in this house; I do not know how you arrange to vote moneys for more than one year, but I think these particular funds must be provided for over a period of years, otherwise there will not be sufficient money to enable the institute to step forward and carry on a complete and comprehensive work. The minister fathered this baby; he will have to feed it or it will starve to death.
There is another matter in the health estimates on which I should like to speak for a few moments, and I refer to health insurance study. On going through the estimates, I find that apparently there is not a full-time director of health insurance studies. There seems to be a gap there and, after all, this is one of the important things which fits in with the government's social security plans. Further, I note that the vote for health insurance studies this year is down by something over $15,000. That is not a good sign, having regard to the fact that we expect this government to bring in some plan in respect to health insurance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You do not always measure a contribution by the amount of money.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: Probably the minister will have something to say on that, but it seems to me that there is a gap there which ought to be filled in. I am reminded of the paragraph in the speech from the throne which had this to say:
Once suitable financial relationships have been arrived at with the provinces, my ministers have undertaken to seek, in a general conference or otherwise, to work out satisfactory arrangements with the provinces in regard to public investment and social security measures.
I take it that this matter of health insurance would certainly come in under social security-measures. It is one matter which should be dealt with at the earliest possible moment. '.Mr. Timmins.]
The minister has been expansive with respect to this matter of national health. I have referred to this before, but speaking at Hawkesbury on April 23 last he had this to say when dealing with social security legislation in Canada:
Hawkesbury as a thriving industrial centre has a vital interest in the social security plans of the Liberal government. If they are carried out, as we hope they will be, these plans will bring to the families of this community a greater degree of security and a greater chance of happil ness and well being than they have ever had before.
As I pointed out, so far as health insurance is concerned we do not seem to have made any start whatsoever in the matter. In other parts of the country, health insurance has already been started. The Ontario medical association has adopted a programme of health insurance which it is trying to bring into being. It is a prepaid medical care plan with no compulsion on the doctor or the patient; they are both to have freedom of choice. There will be small monthly payments and the plan will be for the whole family. Complete medical care will be provided, including attention by specialists. There will be no conflict with the associated medical services plan which has been in existence for ten years.
Other plans are being brought into being and great credit should be given to the pioneers in this field. The fact of the matter is that too many plans are being brought into operation and it is about time that they were coordinated into one big plan. It seems to me that the first thing that should be done is to complete these studies which apparently have been under way for some time but which now seem to be on the toboggan slide.
Some years ago I waded through all the reports of the social security committee for some considerable time and I read the dissertations of that splendid medical adviser that the department had, Doctor Heagerty. However, the report of that committee seems to have been shelved. In the meantime there are insurance company plans for health and sickness insurance which have been in existence for quite some time. I must say-and I have said this on many occasions-that I am not very much impressed by these plans. I do not think the public are getting the service warranted by the money which they put into quite a number of these plans. It seems to me that the disability which occurs is the thing that is left out of the policy.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: You cannot say that.

Supply-Health and Welfare


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: I have had some unfortunate experiences with respect to that. I am afraid that if anyone differs with me, he will have to speak on the matter. I understand that the civil service here has a plan. That is all very well and I agree with it, but I think the time has come when these plans should be coordinated. There are other factors which go to the root of this whole problem, but the fact is that we should have some plan before us. It is not enough that some business firms in their benevolence arrange proper health protection and sickness insurance for their employees when other firms cannot afford to do the same for their employees.
We all know-and the minister has spoken about this himself-of the sad fact that we are short of hospital beds in every province. A return which the minister made the other day indicates that we are short some 27,000 hospital beds throughout the Dominion of Canada. That is where a start with respect to health insurance has to be made. We have to provide hospital accommodation sufficient to look after the people who are sick if any real progress is to be made in overcoming this problem. In the United States they have already started on a plan. Congress has passed an act appropriating S3,000,000 for a hospital survey of the whole United States to find out where beds are needed and in what quantity, and another $75,000,000 has been appropriated for the purpose of building hospitals allocated to various states.
In Ontario a start has also been made. The government of Premier Drew has agreed to pay $1,000 per bed to help various hospitals provide the accommodation that is needed, and I can say from experience that that programme is already bearing fruit. In Toronto, having regard to the donations received from the city and having regard to the donations received from the province, we have had expansions made in a number' of hospitals. The Queen Elizabeth hospital is completing a large extension. The same is true of St. Joseph hospital. The Wellesley hospital has been engaged for the last six months on building and is now completing a large extension. The Mount Sinai hospital has bought a site and is also making a start in providing further accommodation. It seems to me that other governments, other agencies, other countries have stepped ahead of us, and I am saying to the minister that he is a little behind public opinion in respect to health insurance and hospitalization.
There is one other matter I should like to touch on and that is a national health pro-83166-260
gramme. Page 23 of the 1946 report of the Department of National Health and Welfare deals with health insurance and a comprehensive national health programme. But on examining the return which was made on May 7 last for the hon. member for Mackenzie, it would appear that the amount which has been spent on planning and organization for a national health programme is very small indeed, something under $2,500, which is not very much over a period of four years. I would say to the minister and his department that we have been looking for some leadership with respect to these various matters of health insurance and a national health programme and we hoped that such leadership would be reflected in these estimates.
May I close with this summary? First of all there does not appear to be any full time director of health insurance studies. Second, practically nothing has been spent for the last four years in planning and organizing a national health programme. Third, no constructive steps have been taken with respect of health insurance. Fourth, no offer has been made by the dominion to the provinces to implement a national health programme.
There is one other point I should mention. In the return that was made on May 7 last the minister was asked what correspondence had passed, or what offers had been made bv the dominion to the various provinces which had concluded tax agreements, to implement any national health programme, and his answer was that no offers to the provinces which had concluded tax agreements had been made to implement any part of the national health programme outlined to the provinces in the 1945 dominion-provincial conference. And so I add that matter to the things which have been left undone.
All the provinces have not made tax agreements with the dominion. Two of the provinces are still without tax agreements. But to my mind that does not limit the responsibility of the minister. I submit that a start should be made in respect of these matters I have mentioned, and I am pointing out to him that with regard to the five items I have mentioned specifically, no start has yet been made.


Mrs. STRUM:: I wish to congratulate th'e minister on calling together the people who are best equipped to deal with cancer and to assure him that I and the group I represent will give him every support in his fight against this dread disease.
There are some other aspects of health that I want to mention at this time, and I do not wish to repeat the arguments put forward so

Supply-Health and Welfare

well by the hon. member for Lanark and the hon. member for Parkdale. I now desire to draw to the attention of the house that Canada suffers dreadful and unnecessary losses yearly because we fail to take care of the mothers and the babies of this country.
During the years of the war our total casualties for the army, navy and air force amounted to 41,000. During the same period in Canada we lost 130,000 babies, or more than three times the number of our war casualties, due to stillbirth or diseases peculiar to the first year of life.
More staggering still is this figure. Since 1926 we have lost well over 350,000 babies during their first year of life, and nearly 21,000 mothers have died in childbirth alone. That would be the equivalent of a city with the combined population of Halifax, Windsor and Ottawa. Were we to see all these people whose lives were thus lost in one place, the number would be equal to the population of Halifax, plus Windsor, plus Ottawa. That is the extent of this loss of human life.
The Department of Health and Welfare has this to say, that our infant deaths, plus our stillbirth losses, will equal the loss of life from all other causes during the next forty-eight years in the entire population. That is, if all the deaths from all causes in the first forty-eight years for the entire population were put together they would not equal this dreadful and unnecessary loss of life in this one category up to one year of life. That indicates where we can make our greatest gain in population. It also indicates that we have not met the needs of our mothers and children.
I want to draw the attention of the house for a few moments to some figures compiled by the Health Study Bureau of Toronto, in which it points out the facts brought out in the Ebbs survey. Many members will be familiar with the survey conducted in Toronto by Doctor Ebbs and with its results. This simple experiment which cost only $25 for a period of from four to five months gave to expectant mothers supplementary items of diet, simple things like milk, eggs, oranges, tomato juice, wheat germ and vitamin D. In this test group the results were striking indeed. The mothers on poor diets who did not receive this supplementary diet had a much higher percentage of loss of life to mother and child. For the same group the loss of Fife during the six months in the post-natal period is very much higher too. This and other experiments carried on in other parts of the world indicate that our health's greatest need is to pay more attention to nutrition, and in that field we must consider two aspects. We must see that families throughout the country have sufficient income to buy such simple commodities as milk,

cheese, eggs, bu'tter, which should be plentiful on every table. The family income is the basis of purchasing. Then we must educate mothers as to the appropriate diet and the need for her own nutrition.
Another thing that came out in these surveys was that in every family where a check was made, in that household the practice was for the mother to feed the father of the family first, perhaps because he is the breadwinner and the family income depends upon him, and after the father's well-being is considered the children came next, the mother being the last consideration when the family meal was put on the table. This can be serious where there is a large family, and it points to the need of taking care of the mother, not only through family allowances, but through milk subsidies and by means of assistance in the way of income tax exemptions.
I wish to speak for a moment about something that is getting a great deal of attention these days. The minister mentioned it last night. I refer to the booklet put out by Lord Horder, "Rheumatism. A Plan for National Action". I was delighted to get hold of this book because it sheds the first ray of hope on an otherwise hopeless picture, and it gives an encouraging report on what can be done. For the benefit of hon. members who may not have had a chance to see it. I would indicate what a mass survey has revealed about the extent of this disease.
In the state of Massachusetts a house-to-house canvass was carried out, and they found that there were more cases of chronic rheumatism today than of heart disease, tuberculosis and cancer combined. That gives us an idea of how widespread this dreadful malady is. In Great Britain, where the London county council has done some valuable work, we find the extent to which young people suffer and to which students are afflicted with rheumatic diseases. In 1936. of the total of prolonged school absences. 26-7 per cent or more than one-quarter were due to rheumatic disease. This is by far the greatest cause of damage in young lives. The percentage due to tubercular disease was 6-8. and they point out that there are at least 200.000 child sufferers from rheumatism in the United Kingdom.
We should know that even in the present state of incomplete knowledge of this disease, this report tells us that many persons can be cured and helped. I quote from page 11:
Yet it must be insisted that, even in the present state of incomplete knowledge, there is available a range of efficacious treatments, sometimes, happily, obtaining a complete cure, and,

Supply-Health and Welfare
with few exceptions, bringing alleviation of pain and of the degree of disablement. Indeed, it may be said that, if all cases of rheumatic disease were diagnosed in their early stages and promptly submitted to the treatments which present skill can suggest, there would be a prompt and great reduction in the number of lives wrecked by its ravages.
It goes on to suggest what we might adopt as a national objective. I quote from page 32:
The ideal is that every medical practitioner should have sufficient knowledge to detect, or at least to suspect (and, following suspicion, to seek^ further advice) the first symptoms of rheumatic disease. Like all other ideals, it is humanly speaking impossible of complete attainment; but it must be pursued steadily. It is most urgent in the field of juvenile rheumatism, and among those practitioners entrusted with the care of school children.
It goes on to say that we should have, in addition to a high level of training for the general practitioner, to enable him to detect, and suspect and bring cases to the attention of specialists, specialist centres which shall include not only research but also facilities for teaching. It works out in detail what might be expected of these centres.
Another thing that this report points out, and I think we should notice it and act upon it, is this:
It must be repeated that much of this sacrifice of human well-being is avoidable; there is no refuge in the excuse that since medical knowledge of causes and of the most efficacious treatments is incomplete, nothing can be done. In the majority of cases a great deal can be done. Even if there were no hope of gaining further knowledge by research-which emphatically is not the case-yet the national application of present methods of cure and alleviation would lift much of the burden of rheumatic disease from the community.
This report suggests that in Great Britain they should embark on a seven-year plan. They point out ihat if attention were given this problem seriously over a period of seven years great things could be accomplished in the field of research and great strides could be taken toward conquering the ravages, on a mass scale, of this dreadful disease. I suggest to the minister that he do the thing suggested last night-proceed without delay to call a conference on rheumatism and arthritis.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As a result of a consultation which one of my officials has had with Lord Holder and Doctor Wallace Graham of Toronto, the steps I referred to last night have been initiated.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: I am happy to hear if.
I wish now to say a few words about cancer, and I do not want to repeat the arguments put forward so well by hon. members in this 83166-200 it
debate. What the Department of National Health and Welfare has done in this regard is valuable; I mean putting out material warning us that cancer is a killer. This pamphlet warns us that one in every eight persons will die of cancer, and that is enough to scare the 'living daylights out of everyone who reads it. The only trouble is, it does not indicate what one must do to find the money to pay the cost of treatment. There are many good publications put out Here is another one put out by the National Cancer Institute of Canada which gives a graphic description of cancer, its characteristics, cancer tissue and so on.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is from Life magazine, and distributed by the cancer institute.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: It is a supplement, yes. It points out one of the chief causes of fear and one of the chief reasons for delayed treatment. I quote:
Cancer is a chronic disease economically as well as medically. Over the twelve-to-eighteen-month course of treatment, out-of-pocket expenses climb above $1,000, a figure that puts easily two-thirds of the families of the nation, who live on $3,000 a year or less, in the class of medical indigents. The facilities and personnel required to treat cancer are inaccessible, in any case, to the vast majority of U.S. citizens. The 300 approved cancer-treatment clinics are far less than enough to take care of the estimated 300,000 new cases of cancer that turn up every year.
This indicates that we need research. We must have research, and we hope that steps will be taken to coordinate the work of the researchers and help to finance their programme. But in addition to that we must have treatment centres; we must have hospitalization. We must make provision for surgery. There must be provision to pay for the cost of radium, deep-rav and any of the new treatments that come up.
This brings me to the figures the department has given me in answer to my inquiry about the loss of life from cancer during recent years. I find that the cancer casulaties during the war period were 95.627 as compared with 41.000 casualties in the theatre of war. So that actually here in Canada our losses were twice as heavy from the killer cancer as they were in the shooting war where our men were engaged in actual physical combat. That indicates the magnitude of this problem. Here is what we as a nation were spending on cancer through our appropriations for the national research council. In those years from 1939 to 1945 we spent only $4,364.50. According to the figures I gave a moment ago. it would cost at least $1,000 apiece to treat those cases, so that we should
Supply-Health and Welfare

have been spending a great deal more than that. Had we spent 11,000 each on those cases it would have cost $95,672,000. Of course we do not know how many could have been saved. In the course of treatment we shall uncover better and newer methods of treatment and, finally, through a combination of clinical and research effort, I hope we shall get this disease under control.
In closing, I merely wish to remind the minister of the proposals of the government of Canada in their brief to the dominion-provincial conference on reconstruction.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They are ever in my mind.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: Here I think the government' did an excellent piece of work. Quoting from page 30, I notice it says:
In May, 1944-
And we should remember that this was before the last election.
-a conference was held at Ottawa which was attended by representatives of all the provinces.
And so on. Farther down it says:
Since the meeting in 1944, health insurance has been further considered by the federal government in the light of the views expressed by the provinces . . .
That is the part that I found interesting. This was the last session of parliament before the election of 1945.
... In the speeches from the throne which began the session in January, 1944, and which closed the session in January, 1945, the federal government declared again its desire to bring in a nation-wide system of health insurance as soon as suitable arrangements could be made with the provinces. It was stated that this would be one of the subjects to be brought up at the dominion-provincial conference to be held as soon as possible following the general election.
Then it sets out the various aspects of the scheme for health insurance. I would plead with the government to do for health what they have done in the field of taxation, and to permit the provinces individually to take advantage of health schemes and to work out on fhe basis of individual agreements steps whereby they can adequately finance health programmes. The report so well sets out the proposals covering the various aspects of the steps by which this could take place. This indicates that the preliminary work has been done. The Marsh report and these reports indicate that we do not need to go on spending money in finding out what to do. We know what to do. These terrible diseases which cause so much suffering and such great loss of life indicate that you must have an overall, blanket scheme of health insurance so that people may have periodic examinations

to detect incipient arthritis, to detect the first symptoms of cancer, to give help to the pregnant mother when she needs it most, to care for the pre-school child, to take care of the old people. Until we do that we shall have this terrible and unnecessary loss of life, and we shall be tearing our hair about the sparse population, and asking where we shall get immigration and how we shall populate this country. Yet we lost in cancer deaths alone, twice as many people as we lost in the war, and we lost more than thrice as many babies. Every' day we suffer the loss of broken homes through the unnecessary deaths of young mothers. I would urge the government not to wait until Ontario and Quebec come in, not to wait for another dominion-provincial conference, but to permit the provinces separately to save the lives of their people; because, after all, it is the provinces that have jurisdiction and responsibility in the field of health.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Any suggestion in connection with the revision of the procedure of the house must always take account of the necessity of finding some means of shortening the time spent in the house without the sacrifice of essential discussion. In what I have to say tonight I hope to put forward a proposal which, far from sacrificing any of the time devoted to this important subject of health and welfare, may actually provide more time and more opportunity for getting to the roots of some of these questions and at the 'same time help to speed up the procedure of the house.
Here we are dealing with an important department, a department charged with the administration of two subjects of vast importance to the people of Canada, namely, health and welfare. Either one of those is of vital importance. The combination of the two of them in the one department marks it as one of the most important departments of government. It is, as the committee knows, the second largest spender among the government departments. Only the Department of Finance, through the payment of interest on government obligations, actually disburses more money and calls for larger amounts in its estimates than does this department. It seems to me that the test which must be applied by the committee in approaching the estimates of this department is this: Is enough money provided to do what is required to be done and is the country receiving a fair dollar's worth in value for each dollar expended?
There is an obligation on this committee in connection with these estimates which at

Supply-Health and Welfare
the present time I say we are not equipped adequately to discharge. In the annual report of the auditor general attached to the public accounts for the year ended March 31, 1946, you will find this sentence at page 17:
Parliament's control over nublic money is, to_a degree, dependent on the efficiency employed in calculating estimates.
We are reminded from time to time that the ultimate responsibility for the expenditure of money rests on parliament. At the present time the procedure provided for carrying out that task is not one that permits parliament to discharge that duty efficiently or adequately. We are * provided with estimates which give us, by way of information, simply the amount provided by parliament the previous year by way of estimated expenditure. We are not given the actual expenditure. There is not one member of this house who, if he were conducting the affairs of a business, would undertake to prepare his budget of expenditure for the succeeding year without having before him the actual expenditure of the preceding year; or if he is preparing his budget of expenditure before the end of the year, he would at least have the actual expenditure up to the date of making his estimates and the estimated expenditure for the remainder of the year. Parliament is not given to that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: All the hon. gentleman has to do is ask the question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am coming to that. I have been talking up to the moment about the form of the estimates themselves, which is not adequate to permit parliament to do its duty in respect of a review of the estimates under the present procedure. If we are not to be given in the book of estimates more information about actual expenditure, then a different procedure must be provided for the review of estimates.
We derive little or no help from the actual report of the department. Here we are in June, 1947, asked to vote sums of money for this department in excess of $308,000,000; actually, including the items for demobilization and reconversion, we are being asked to provide about $320,000,000, which is a tidy sum. Yet the last report we have-and this is no greater criticism of this department than of any other department of government-on the operations of this department is for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1946, a year which ended sixteen and a half months ago. No business could be operated by way of budgeting, on the colossal scale on which parliament is being asked to budget, with stale information like that.
What is the method by which parliament can seek to do its duty in respect of estimates, in the face of the handicaps I have mentioned? It is obvious that we must devise a different procedure. What I am saying in regard to the estimates of this department will apply equally, I think, to the estimates of almost every other department, with one exception, External Affairs. What I say is needed, both for the purpose of reviewing the estimates of this important department and for the review of other matters in relation to health and welfare in Canada, is a standing committee of this house. This is not the first time I have put this proposal forward. I have had a motion to this effect on the order paper, but like many other private members' resolutions it will probably be reached about 1960.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You won't be here.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not doubt that a good many hon. members opposite won't be here then, but I think those in this quarter of the house will have overflowed to the other side, and will be occupying the government benches for a long period. As I say, what is badly needed in our structure at the present time is a standing committee which will have jurisdiction to review matters pertaining to health, welfare, social security and housing. Definitely, housing ought to be included within the scope of that committee. We badly need a committee that can review housing and inquire into conditions and remedies; and that is the kind of committee which should be set up for this purpose. At the present time, we have what is called the voluntary health committee of both houses. It does good work within a limited sphere; I am not decrying the useful work done by that committee, but it is not an official body. It is not a standing committee of the house, and it cannot undertake the tasks which I submit such a committee ought to undertake.
It is no answer to say that we have many other committees of this house. I am tired of hearing that answer given by those on the government benches. We have a number of committees, but that is no answer to the fact that there is great need for a committee of this kind. I think we might very well abolish some of these other committees and make way for one that will be alive and will do needed work in these fields. Some of the committees we have at the present time just do not meet. Some of them h ive not met since this parliament opened. Is it not about time that the organization of this house was recast and some attempt made to modernize the procedure of this house and our committee
Supply-Health and Welfare

structure? What would happen if there were such a committee, in a position to review the estimates of this important department? We would have an opportunity to get to the meat of some of these questions that it is almost impossible to deal with in a committee as large as the committee of the whole house. To go into detail on some of these questions which should be gone into by a parliament that undertakes to say it is doing its duty in respect to health and welfare would provoke from all sides complaints about taking up too much time. I will readily agree that to study a great many of these questions in the detail in which they should be studied, if done in this parliament, would involve a wastage of man-power. So in that respect a standing committee of the house would save a great deal of time; and I believe we should devise means to economize the time of the house and direct the energies of hon. members to better advantage than can be done in committee of the whole.
Moreover, there is a great deal of information we have no opportunity to dig into in this house. It would be beneficial if, through such a committee, we could devise a procedure which would enable us to bring officials of the department before the committee. I am not at all deprecating the efforts of the minister, this minister or any other; but it would enable us to obtain the thoughts and ideas of the senior officials, who in the case of this department are very important officials indeed. AVe could be given their advice and recommendations in regard1 to policy, instead of having all our questions answered at second hand by a minister. What happens? Somebody asks a question that involves detailed information. It is necessary for the officials sitting on the floor of the house to try to brief the minister in whispered conversations in a matter of seconds, so that he can answer these questions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You have not tested me yet.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is only because of my fondness for the minister that I have refrained from testing him. I am very fond of the minister, and I have to be careful of him.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The respect and love is mutual.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Thank you; I am very glad to have that assurance.
There is another aspect to this matter. Parliament does not provide an opportunity at the present time for doing justice to some valuable proposals that are made from time to time both in the house and outside the

house with reference to measures of health and welfare and social security.	What
happens? On many occasions organized labour has brought forward most valuable suggestions, but what becomes of them? They are made to a minister and go into the files of his department.	When does parliament hear
about them? Parliament does not hear about them until at long last the government decides to move an inch in some direction. There is no opportunity of breaking down the distressing inertia of this government unless we have a chance, through a committee organization, to sift these proposals through and obtain views upon them on the part of senior, competent officials of the departments. At the present time, we are not doing justice to proposals of that kind. And there is support for this idea on the government benches. Let a free expression be given on the other side of the house in this connection, and I venture to say that under those circumstances we would be setting up such a committee in very short order; the need for it has been so abundantly proven.
Now, Mr. Chairman, we have had many useful suggestions in the course of this debate, and I have not the slightest intention of reviewing the ground which has already been so well covered. Mention has been made of the shortage of hospitals. That shortage is serious. There are other shortages that could be coupled with it, and one is the shortage of nurses. The Minister of Veterans Affairs, in a press release which appears as a Canadian Press dispatch under date of April 29, had this to say about the large number of nurses who had been serving as such in the armed forces during the war:
A survey of former nursing sisters in the armed forces shows that about 44-5 per cent still are employed as nurses, Veterans Minister Mackenzie announced today.
The survey was based on replies from 1,571 of the 4,400 who served in the armed forces during the second great war, and showed that 27-9 per cent are busy with home duties, 17-9 per cent taking DVA rehabilitation training, 3 per cent unemployed. 2-4 per cent in poor health, 2-2 per cent awaiting suitable employment and 2-1 per cent employed in an occupation other than nursing.
We are faced with a serious shortage of nurses in this country. This is also borne out by the return which was referred to on an earlier occasion recently brought down by the minister, in which it was indicated that the latest estimate of the present shortage of nurses in this country is 8,700. We wish to hear some concrete proposals for encouraging more young women to train as nurses. We wish to hear some concrete proposals for

Supply-Health and Welfare
inducing more of these trained nurses to remain in their profession. A great disservice was done in that respect last year when the government introduced a measure which had the effect of increasing the taxes of married men who are the husbands of nurses who otherwise would be prepared to continue in the nursing profession. Many married nurses were affected by this increase in the tax which arises from the reduction of exemption in the salaries of married men.
This, unfortunately, is the sort of problem in which parliament under its present organization, is almost powerless to assist the minister.
I think parliament will welcome an opportunity to assist the minister. Hon. members who have spoken in the debate so far have expressed the desire to be of assistance. I believe there are no members in the house-
1 would be sorry to think there are any-who would wish to see these important social questions such as health, welfare and social security made the subjects of political, partisan debate. Those are subjects on which all parties ought to be united in their effort to bring about better conditions in this country. But at the present time, with the kind of organization we have in the house, members are prevented, from making their full contribution to the solution of these problems.


An hon. MEMBER:: What are you doing about it?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am doing, as much as I can, within the present organization of the house. And I should hope that, like many other members in the house, I would be able to make a better contribution if we had a method of proceeding w,ith more detailed information and more detailed study than is possible at the present time.
There is one aspect of this question of maternal mortality and child mortality which, I think, is deserving of mention. We are all greatly concerned about immigration; it is a matter of vast importance. I believe we are prepared to see some substantial sums spent on immigration, for the seeking of immigrants of the right type, healthy immigrants both in mind and in. body. Here we are faced with a situation where, annually, we see. 15,000 children die under the age of one year in Canada, and we see also a maternal mortality rate which fills us all with concern. We are glad to note the progress that has been made in recent years in the matter of maternal mortality, through the reduction of the rate over a period of time. But I believe we are all agreed that much more should be done than has been done, because that rate is far too ''**>
for this country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Has my hon. friend the latest table?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have the latest table which appears in the report.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I just wished to make sure;
I am trying to be helpful.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If this country is prepared to spend a substantial sum of money to obtain immigrants, then I think that equally we want to see that more young Canadians at birth are given an opportunity for life and health. Money can just as wisely be spent in that way. I am not minimizing the importance of immigration; far from it. Let us have the right type of immigrants. But here is an instance where we are losing a substantial number of infant Canadians every year, and something must be .done now to improve that situation.
My time has almost expired, and I shall conclude with only one further observation. Of course there are limitations on the powers given under our constitution to the federal government in the matter of health. As we all know, the administration of health is in the hands of the provinces, and it should remain there. Health measures must be administered by the provinces. All these social measures must be administered by those governments which are closest to the people, and that means a substantial measure of administration through municipal governments.
But there are several respects in which the^lominion Department of National Health and Welfare can do much in the field of health. The first is in the matter of research. The minister has given a great deal of praise to research workers in respect of cancer. He had less to say about arthritis. I would say there are no limitations on the power of the dominion government to support research work. There must be far more done in the matter of research in Canada, and in connection with health measures, than we have begun to do or have even begun to think of doing up to the present time. Cancer is one example, perhaps the most striking, because of its alarming death rate. Each of us has lost a near relative as a result of this terrible scourge. There is, too, the scourge of arthritis: 600,000 people in Canada are suffering from it at the present time. As the minister has said, there are difficulties in the way of persevering with research in the matter of arthritis; but we must overcome those difficulties. It is a scourge which we cannot meet with folded hands.
Visit of President Truman

There is a great deal more to be done by the dominion in the matter of cooperation with the provinces. We cannot afford in this country to wait indefinitely for the outcome of some trial of strength between the dominion and the provinces. We must work within the constitution for the uniting of forces of the dominion and the provinces in a proper and comprehensive health scheme for this country.
I hope it is not going to be the kind of scheme which will attempt to make the doctors civil servants, and simply put them on salaries. We do not want state medicine. But we do want an adequate and comprehensive scheme of health insurance in Canada. I't can be brought about by a united effort between the dominion and the provinces. I urge again that this matter is far too important to await the outcome of a trial of strength between dominion and provincial governments.
Now-and this is my concluding word-we shall have more to say when we come to the detailed items of the department concerning expenditures on publicity. We shall wish to know from the minister that the money asked to be voted for what is now called educational and informational publicity-a much more *euphonious title than the former one-is being well spent. I come back to the test I applied in the beginning: In this department as in all others-but certainly no less in this depart, ment, because of the vital importance of the subjects of health and welfare-we must see to it as a parliament, because the responsibility is shared by us with the government, that the taxpayer receives a fair dollar's value for every dollar spent.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


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


[Stage Direction]
President of the United States of America

[Stage Direction]
House of Commons Chamber, Ottawa on
Wednesday, June 11, 1947
The President was welcomed hy the Right Honourable TV. L. Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada, and thanked by the Honourable James H. King, Speaker of the Senate, and the Honourable Gaspard Fauteux, Speaker of the House of Commons.
11.45 a.m.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. President, members of the Parliament of Canada: We are indeed greatly honoured in having as our country's guest today the President of the United States of America. Your visit, Mr. President, 
is a welcome expression of friendship and good will, both personal and national. On behalf of the members of Canada's parliament here assembled, and of all whom we represent, I extend to you the warmest of welcomes.
In paying this neighbourly visit to our capital, we are delighted that you are accom-

Visit of President Truman
panied bv Mrs. Truman and Miss Truman. We are pleased that you have found it possible to make your stay of sufficient length to enable you to see something of Ottawa and its surroundings, and to give members of parliament and others the privilege of meeting you and Mrs. Truman, and your talented daughter. We know how greatly His Excellency the Governor General and Lady Alexander enjoyed their recent visit to Washington. and how very much they have been looking forward to having Mrs. Truman. Miss Truman and j-ourself as their guests at Rideau Hall. Nothing could be more symbolic of the happy relations between our two peoples than family visits between the White House in Washington and Government House in Ottawa.
' I should like to add, Mr. President, how great a pleasure it is to me personally to be renewing today, in my own country, the deeply valued friendship formed with yourself on my visits to the United States from time to time. I shall always recall your wish, so generously expressed, almost immediately upon your assumption of office, that the relations between our two countries might continue to be as friendly as they had been at all times under President Roosevelt, and that you and I might come to share a personal friendship correspondingly close. You know how warmly both these wishes were and are reciprocated.
We are especially indebted to you, Mr. President, for your courtesy in consenting to speak to the members of our parliament in the course of your visit. To most men in high position, an escape from the ordeal of public addresses is a not unwelcome form of relaxation. To this doctrine, I am sure you will readily subscribe. Your willingness not only to speak but to allow your address to be broadcast will be warmly appreciated in all parts of Canada, as also in the United Kingdom, the United States, and elsewhere.
Your visit, Mr. President, vividly recalls the visit to Ottawa, in August 1943, of your illustrious predecessor. It was the first visit to Canada's capital of a President of the United States. That visit was at a time of war. At that time, the allied nations were still two years away from ultimate victory. Today, we are almost equidistant from the final battles which brought an end to hostilities in Europe and in Asia.
It was on the eve of the final battles that President Roosevelt was taken from his people. We do not forget it was without a moment's warning, and at that hour of world
crisis, that the mighty burdens which he had borne so long and with such great fortitude were transferred from his shoulders to yours. Before final victory was won, you were called upon to take grave and historic decisions. Since the end of the war you have been faced with the baffling tasks of reconstruction, when the grim effects of world conflict are still more apparent than the foundations of peace. We are glad to have the opportunity, which your presence here today affords, to tell you, Mr. Truman, how greatly the Canadian people have admired the manner in which, under all these circumstances, you assumed and are now bearing the tremendous responsibilities of the office of President of the United States.
May I say how greatly we all admire the qualities of humour, sincerity and courage and the capacity for friendship which you possess in such large measure, and which, if I may say so, have been particularly evident since the last congressional elections. Far be it from me to introduce any note of party politics into words of official welcome, much less to say anything that, even to appearances, might be considered interference in the domestic affairs of another country. At the same time, I think that all of us in public life would agree that to be faced with a legislature of which the majority may be disinclined to accept the government's policies is not the most comfortable position in which to find oneself as head of an administration.
Because of a considerable experience in such matters, I may perhaps be allowed, in an aside to the President, to express a personal *word of sympathy and understanding. Many who are assembled in this chamber can tell you, Mr. President, that, as leader of a political party and as head of the government, there have been occasions when I too have had to face situations not wholly dissimilar. It may serve as a note of encouragement to you when I say I have yet to find that such embarrassments are necessarily a bar to many years of office.
May I conclude this wrord of welcome on a more serious note. You, Mr. President, have said: "If wars in the future are to be prevented, the peace-loving nations must be united in their determination to keep the peace under law. The breaking of the peace anywhere is the concern of peace-loving nations everywhere". This statement of American policy might equally be a statement of Canadian policy. In the solution of all world problems, effective co-operation between nations is a first essential. In effective cooperation, no finer example could be given to the world than that which has been developed
Address of President Truman

between the United States and Canada over the years, and which was especially evident during the years of war.
The Ogdensburg agreement and the Hyde Park declaration are the two great landmarks of our wartime co-operation. During the war these agreements were the basis of joint action in defence, in production, and in finance. Over and over again we have heard it said that co-operation, which was so effective as one of the instruments of victory in war, should be continued as one of the means of achieving and maintaining security and prosperity in a time of peace. By continuing co-operation along similar lines, Canada and the United States will not only be furthering their mutual interests, they will be strengthening the foundation of a new world order, an order based on international understanding, on mutual aid, on friendship and good will.
Mr. HARRY S. TRUMAN (President of the United States):	Mr. Prime Minister,
honourable members of the Senate, and members of the House of Commons of Canada: This is my first visit to Canada as President of the United States, and I am happy that it affords me the opportunity to address this meeting of the members of both houses of the Canadian Parliament. Here is a body which exemplifies the self-government and freedom of the nations of the great British Commonwealth. The history of the Commonwealth proves that it is possible for many nations to work and live in harmony for the common good.
I wish to acknowledge the many courtesies extended to me on this visit by the Governor General, Viscount Alexander, who paid me the honour of a visit in Washington a few months ago. His career as a soldier and as a statesman eminently qualifies him to follow his illustrious predecessors.
For the courtesy of appearing before you, as for other courtesies, I am sure I am largely indebted to my good friend Prime Minister Mackenzie King. I was particularly happy to be present yesterday when he was honoured in the rotunda of this Parliament Building. It was a wonderful ceremony, and a tribute which I think he richly deserved. I also appreciate the political advice he gave me this morning. I have come to value and cherish his friendship and statesmanship. As our two nations have worked together in solving the difficult problems of the post-war period, I have developed greater and greater respect for his wisdom.
Americans who come to know Canada informally, such as our tourists, as well as those whose approach is more academic, learn that Canada is a broad land-broad in mind and
in spirit as well as in physical expanse. They find that the composition of your population and the evolution of your political institutions hold a lesson for the other nations of the earth. Canada has achieved internal unity and material strength, and has grown in stature in the world community, by solving problems that might have hopelessly divided and weakened a less gifted people.
Canada's eminent position today is a tribute to the patience, tolerance, and strengtn of character of her people, of both French and British strains. For Canada is enriched by the heritage of France as well as of Britain, and Quebec has imparted the vitality and spirit of France itself to Canada. Canada's notable achievement of national unity and progress through accommodation, moderation, and forbearance can be studied with profit, by her sister nations.
Much the same qualities have been employed, with like success, in your relations with the United States. Perhaps I should say "your foreign relations with the United States." But the word "foreign" seems strangely out of place. Canada and the United States have reached the point where we no longer think of each other as "foreign" countries. We think of each other as friends, as epaceful and co-operative neighbours on a spacious and fruitful continent.
We must go back a long way, nearly a century and a half, to find a time when we were not on good terms. In the war of 1812 there was fighting across our frontier. But permanent good came of that brief campaign. It shocked Canadians and Americans into a realization that continued antagonism would be costly and perilous. The first result of that realization was the Rush-Bagot agreement in 1817, which embodied a spirit and an attitude that have permeated our relations to this day. This agreement originally was intended to limit and to regulate the naval vessels of both countries on the great lakes. It has become one of the world's most effective disarmament agreements and is the basis for our much-hailed unfortified frontier.
I speak of that period of history to make the point that the friendship that has characterized Canadian-American relations for many years did not develop spontaneously. The example of accord provided by our two countries did not come about merely through the happy circumstance of geography. It is compounded of one part proximity and nine parts good will and common sense.
We have had a number of problems, but they have all been settled by adjustment, by compromise, and by negotiations inspired by a spirit of mutual respect and a desire for

Address o/ President Truman
justice on both sides. This is the peaceful way, the sensible way, and the fair way to settiu problems, whether between two nations thaw are close neighbours or among many nations widely separated.
This way is open to all. We in Canada and the United States are justifiably proud of our joint record, but we claim no monopoly on the formula.
Canada and the United States will gladly share the formula, which rejects distrust and suspicion in favour of common sense, mutual respect, and equal justice, with their fellow members of the United Nations. One of the most effective contributions which our two contries can make to the cause of the United nations is the patient and diligent effort to apply on a global scale the principles and practices -which we have tested with success on this continent.
Relations between Canada and the United States have emphasized the spirit of co-operation rather than the letter of protocol. The Rush-Bagot agreement was stated in less than 150 words. From time to time it has been revised by mutual agreement to meet changing conditions. It was amended as recently as last December.
The last war brought our countries into even closer collaboration. The Ogdensburg agreement of 1940 provided for the creation of the Permanent Joint Board on Defence. It was followed by the Hyde Park agreement of 1941, which enabled us to co-ordinate our economic resources with increased efficiency. Common interests, particularly after Pearl Harbor, required the creation of several joint agencies to co-ordinate our effortsn i special fields. When victory ended the necessity for these agencies, they were quietly disbanded with a minimum disturbance of the national economies of the two countries-just common sense again.
The permanent Joint Board on Defence will continue to function. I wish to emphasize, in addition to the word "permanent", the other two parts of the title. The board is joint, being composed of representatives of each country. Canada and the United States participate on the basis of equality, and the sovereignty of each is carefully respected. This was true during the gravest days of the war and it will continue to be true, in keeping with the nature of all our joint undertakings.
The board was created, and will continue to exist, for the sole purpose of assuring the most effective defence of North America. The board, as you know, has no executive powers and can only make recommendations for action. The record of the board provides another example of the truly co-operative spirit that prevails between our two countries.
The spirit of common purpose and the impressive strength which we marshalled for action on all fronts are the surest safeguard of continental security in the future.
The people of the United States fully appreciate the magnificent contribution in men and resources that Canada made to the allied war effort. United States soldiers, sailors, and airmen in the heat of battle knew their Canadian comrades as valiant and daring warriors. We look back with pride on our association as staunch allies in two wars.
Today our two nations are called upon to make great contributions to world rehabilitation. This task requires broad vision and constant effort.
I am confident that we can overcome the difficulties involved, as we overcame the greater difficulties of the war. The national genius of our peoples finds its most satisfying expression in the creation of new values in peace.
The record proves that in peaceful commerce the combined efforts of our countries can produce outstanding results. Our trade with each other is far greater than that of any other two nations on earth.
Last year the flow of trade in both directions across the border reached the record peacetime total of two and a quarter billion dollars. We imported from Canada more than twice the value of goods we received from the United Kingdom, France, China and Russia combined. United States purchases from Canada were about six times our purchases from Great Britain, nearly ten times those from China, and eleven times those from France. We sold to Canada nearly as much as we sold to Britain and France together.
Gratifying as the volume of our trade now is, it is capable of even further expansion to our mutual benefit. Some of our greatest assets are still to be developed to the maximum. I am thinking of one particularly that holds tremendous possibilities, the magnificent St. Lawrence-Great Lakes system, which we share and which we must develop together.
The St. Lawrence project stirs the imagination of men long accustomed to majestic distances and epic undertakings. The proposal for taking electric power from the river and bringing ocean shipping 2,400 miles inland, to tap the fertile heart of our continent, is economically sound and strategically important.
When this programme is carried out, the waterway that is part of our boundary will more than ever unite our two countries. It will stimulate our economies td new growth and will speed the flow of trade.

Address oj President Truman
There have been times when shortsighted tariff policies on both sides threatened to raise almost insurmountable barriers. But the need to exchange goods was so imperative that trade flourished despite artificial obstacles. The reciprocal trade agreements of 1936 and 1939 made possible a sensible reduction of tariff rates, and paved the way to our present phenomenal trade.
Something more than commercial agreements, however, is required to explain why Canada and the United States exchange more than two billion dollars worth of goods a year. Ambassador Atherton has aptly given the reason as not "free trade", but "the trade of free men". That record flow of goods and the high standard of living it indicates, on both sides of the border, provide a practical demonstration of the benefits of the democratic way of life and a free economy.
The benefits of our democratic governments and free economies operating side by side have spread beyond our countries to the advantage of the whole world. Both nations expanded their productivity enormously during the war and both escaped the physical damage that afflicted other countries. As a result, Canada and the United States emerged from the war as the only major sources of the industrial products and the food upon which much of the world depends for survival.
Canada has responded as nobly to the challenge of peace as she did to that of the war. Your wheat has fed millions who otherwise would have starved. Your loan has strengthened Britain in her valiant battle for recovery.
The United States is particularly gratified to find Canada at our side in the effort to develop the international Trade Organization. We attach great importance to this undertaking, because we believe it will provide the key to the welfare and prosperity of the world in the years immediately ahead.
In sponsoring the International Trade Organization, the United States, with the co-operation of Canada and other countries, is making a determined effort to see that the inevitable adjustments in world trade as a result of the war will result in an expanding volume of business for all nations.
Our goal is a vast expansion of agriculture and industry throughout the world, with freer access to raw materials and markets for all nations, and a wider distribution of the products of the earth's fields and factories among all peoples. Our hope is to multiply the fruitfulness of the earth and to diffuse its benefits among all mankind.

At this critical point in history, we of the United States are deeply conscious of our responsibilities to the world. We know that in this trying period, between a war that is over and a peace that is not yet secure, the destitute and the oppressed of the earth look chiefly to us for sustenance and support until they can again face life with self-confidence and self-reliance.
We are keenly aware that much depends upon the internal strength, the economic stability and the moral stamina of the United States. We face this challenge with determination and confidence.
Free men everywhere know that the purpose of the United States is to restore the world to health and to re-establish conditions in which the common people of the earth can work out their salvation by their own efforts.
We seek a peaceful world, a prosperous world, a free world, a world of good neighbours, living on terms of equality and mutual respect, as Canada and the United States have lived for generations.
We intend to expend our energies and to invest our substance in promoting world recovery by assisting those who are able and willing to make their maximum contribution to the same cause.
We intend to support those who are determined to govern themselves in their own way, and who honour the right of others to do likewise.
We intend to aid those who seek to live at peace with their neighbours, without coercing or being coerced, without intimidating or being intimidated.
We intend to uphold those who respect the dignity of the individual, who guarantee to him equal treatment under law, and who allow him the widest possible liberty to work out his own destiny and achieve success to the limit of his capacity.
We intend to co-operate actively and loyally with all who honestly seek, as we do, to build a better world in which mankind can live in peace and prosperity.
We count Canada in the forefront of those who share these objectives and ideals.
With such friends we face the future unafraid.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I call upon the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons to express the thanks of Parliament to the President for the address which he has just delivered to us.


Hon. J. H. KING (Speaker of the Senate):: Mr. President, it is my privilege, more particularly on behalf of the members of the Senate,

Visit oj President Truman
to express the thanks of all here assembled for the inspiring and historic address which you have just delivered.
Mr. President, your speech of today illustrates what has often been said and is frequently in our minds, namely, that the people of the United States and the people of Canada enjoy, to an exceptional degree, personal friendships and social amenities in cultural and political relations.
This happy situation, as you have made clear this morning, is the result of freedom of personal contact, similarities in customs and in liberty, enjoyed by the peoples of our two countries under democratic forms of government. The comradeship-in-arms in the world's two greatest wars, wars that have taken place in the lifetime of one generation, has, as you have said, Mr. President, drawn us still more closely together.
In conclusion, let me again extend to you. Mr. President, the assurance of our pleasure in and gratitude for your visit to Canada, and for your memorable address of this morning. We pray that the Almighty will continue to give you guidance and wisdom in your great task.


Hon. GASPARD FAUTEUX (Speaker of the House of Commons):: Mr. President, it is my privilege to join with the Speaker of the Senate in also thanking you in the name of the members of both houses for the address to which we have just been listening. You may be assured that the unseen audience which, we know, extends oyer the entire continent, will have listened with the same deep interest as your immediate audience here, and that your message will have been received by them with the same enthusiasm and approval as by those who have had the added pleasure of seeing as well as hearing you in this Commons chamber.
As you are awrare, Mr. President, both English and French are official languages in Canada's Parliament. May I be permitted now, Mr. President, since the language of Shakespeare and the language of Moliere are both official in Canada, to express myself in the latter, the one brought to Canada from France by your ancestors and which is still our most precious heritage.
(Translation):
On behalf of my French-speaking compatriots, I wish to assure you of our deep admiration and to express our thanks to you for having consented to come to our capital city, and for having made, in our parliament, the splendid speech we have just heard.
In the name of the Commons, who have elected me as the first commoner of the country, may I pray Almighty God to bless and inspire the President and the leaders o the mighty United States of America, and enable them to find, and apply, if I may say so a spiritual atomic formula which, by the grace of God will ensure to the world a holy peace, with liberty, equality and fraternity.
(Text):
I should like, Mr. President, to express in the English language what I have justt said in my native tongue.
On behalf of my French-speaking compatriots I wish to assure you of our deep admiration and to express our thanks to you for having consented to come to our capital city, and for having made m our Parliament the splendid speech we have just heard.
In the name of the Commons, who have elected me as the First Commoner of the countrv, may I pray Almighty God to bless and inspire the President and the leaders of the mighty United States of America, and enable them to find, and apply, if 1 may say so, a spiritual atomic formula which by the grace of God will ensure to the world a holy peace, with liberty, equality and fraternity.
Again, Mr. President, we thank you for the memorable and inspiring address which you have delivered to us today, and which, as of historic significance, will be preserved in the official records of both houses of the Canadian Parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This brings to a conclusion the proceedings of this morning. May I propose three hearty cheers for the President of the United States.
(After three cheers jor the President, me gathering dispersed.)
Unveiling of Portraits



APPENDIX &quot;B&quot;


[Stage Direction]
Canada's Prime Ministers in Two Worxd Wars THE LATE RIGHT HON. SIR ROBERT LAIRD BORDEN
[Stage Direction]
THE RIGHT HON. W. L. MACKENZIE KING June 10, 1947
In the presence oj:
His Excellency the Governor General of Canada, Field Marshal the Right Honourable the Viscount Alexander of Tunis;
The President of the United States of America, Harry S. Truman.
Senator the Honourable J. H. King, Speaker of the Senate, and the Honourable Gaspard Fauteux, Speaker of the House of Commons, presided.
Also present were:
The Right Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada; Right Honourable Ian A. Mackenzie, Leader of the House of Commons; Senator the Honourable V ishart McL. Robertson, Leader of the Government in the Senate; His Excellency the Honourable Ray Atherton, Ambassador of the United States of unerica, Fleet Admiral V . D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to the Commander in Chief of the United States Army and Navy; Senator the Honourable John T. Haig, Leader of f/T^I>OS*^orL 'n ^le Senate; John Bracken, Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons; Senator the Honourable C. C. Ballantyne; M. J. Coldwell. Leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party; Solon E. Low, Leader of the Social Ciedit party; Frank O. Salisbury; Kenneth Forbes; and other members of the Senate and of the House of Commons.
At 5.30 pun. His Excellency the Governor General of Canada and the President of the United States of America arrived in the Chambers of the Speaker of the House of Commons and proceeded to the main lobbyu
God Save the King The Star-Spangled Banner
Hon. GASPARD FAUTEUX (Speaker of the House of Commons):: Mr. President, Your Excellency, guests of honour, and honourable members of the Senate and of the House of Commons: We are gathered here this afternoon to witness the unveiling of the portraits of two of Canada's most distinguished sons. In the hours of stress, when the world was in the throes of terrible wars, we were fortunate in having as prime ministers two men endowed with strong patriotism, vision and strength of character. They were, during the war of 19141918, the Right Honourable Sir Robert Laird Borden, and. during the recent war of 19391945, the Right Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King.
Before I proceed further may I say, in the name of all present, how much indebted we are and how grateful we all feel to His Excellency the Governor General, Field Marshal Lord Alexander, for honouring this occasion by his presence, and for having graciously consented to unveil the two portraits.
We are also deeply grateful to His Excellency for bringing with him his distinguished guest, the President of the United States of America, who arrived in Ottawa this afternoon on a brief visit to Canada. We are indeed delighted that Mr. Truman should, on such short notice, have been prepared to join His Excellency.
Mr. President, Your Excellency, you may both be assured that your presence within our

Unveiling oj Portraits
halls of parliament on this occasion is an honour which will long be remembered by the members of both houses and indeed by all Canadians.
For a long time it has been felt that Sir Robert Borden's portrait should adorn the walls of these houses of parliament. When I had the honour to become Speaker of the House of Commons, I soon discovered that the consensus of opinion of members of both houses was that the practice of placing our Prime Ministers' portraits in the parliament buildings should be' resumed. Instructions were accordingly given for the painting of a portrait of the late Sir Robert Borden. Mr. Kenneth Fprbes, the well-known artist of Toronto, was commissioned for the purpose. How splendidly Mr. Forbes executed his commission you will see when the portrait of Sir Robert Borden is unveiled.
While arranging for this commission I learned of the portrait of the present Prime Minister which was painted by Mr. Frank 0. Salisbury, and which had been exhibited in the Royal Academy in London. The portrait was temporarily on exhibition at our own National Gallery. Members who saw it were high in their praise of the great artist who was responsible for this splendid work of art. A general desire was expressed that the portrait should be placed in our parliament buildings.
On the 8th of December last, I took it upon myself to write the Prime Minister in the matter. Several letters were exchanged between Mr. King and myself before I was able to convince him that my request should be granted. Perhaps I may be permitted to use a privilege given to members of both houses, with unanimous consent, and given sometimes by the Speakers, to table for the press the correspondence exchanged.
May I say, in a word, that being assured that it was the wish of the Speakers, and of the leaders of all parties in both houses, that the portrait by Mr. Salisbury should be hung on the walls of these buildings at the same time as the portrait of Sir Robert Borden, Mr. King not only gave his consent to the transfer of the portrait for that purpose, but said he would be pleased to have the portrait accepted as a gift from himself to parliament.
I quite understand Mr. King's hesitation in allowing us to have his portrait for these walls while he is still a member of parliament, but I may assure him that after twenty years in the office of Prime Minister he should experience no embarrassment on that account.
Your final agreement to this step, Mr. Prime Minister, has warmed our hearts and increased your popularity in parliamentary circles. I wish to extend to you, sir, the sincere thanks
of all the members of the Senate and of the House of Commons for the very generous manner in which you have acceded to our request.
The Speaker oj the Senate, the Honourable J. H. King, then invited His Excellency the Governor General to unveil the portrait oj Sir Robert Laird Borden. The Speaker said:
Mr. President, Your Excellency, members of the Senate and of the House of Commons: On behalf of the members of the Senate and of the House of Commons of Canada, I have the honour to invite Your Excellency to unveil the portrait of the Right Honourable Sir Robert Laird Borden, who from 1911 to 1920, a period which included the years of the first great war, 1914-18, was Prime Minister of Canada.
(His Excellency unveiled the portrait oj Sir Robert Borden.)


Hon. J. H. KING (Speaker of the Senate):: Mr. President, Your Excellency: I have pleasure in presenting to you the artist, Mr. Kenneth Forbes, of Toronto, to whose talent we are indebted for the splendid portrait of Sir Robert Laird Borden.
(Mr. Forbes came forward and acknowledged applause by a bow to the assembled company.)


Hon.   S@: Mr. Henry Borden
has telegraphed his regret at his inability to be present at this ceremony. We are very sorry that circumstances have prevented him from witnessing the unveiling of this portrait of his illustrious uncle.
The Speaker oj the House oj Commons, the Honourable Gaspard Fauteux, then invited His Excellency to unveil the portrait oj the present Prime Minister. The Speaker said:
Mr. President, Your Excellency, members of the Senate and of the House of Commons: On behalf of the members of the Senate and of the House of Commons of Canada, I have the honour to invite Your Excellency to unveil the portrait of the Right Honourable William Lyon Mackenzie King, who today completes twenty years in the office of Prime Minister of Canada, including the years of the second great war, 1939-45.
(His Excellency unveiled the portrait oj the Prime Minister.)


Gaspard Fauteux: Mr. President, Your Excellency: I have pleasure in presenting to you Mr. Frank 0. Salisbury, of London Eng-
Unveiling of Portraits '

land, the artist to whose talent we are indebted for the splendid portrait of our Prime Minister.
{Mr. Salisbury came forward and acknowledged applause by a bow to the assembled company.)
HIS EXCELLENCY, FIELD MARSHAL THE RIGHT HON. THE VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF TUNIS (Governor General of Canada): Mr. President, Mr. Prime Minister: I feel that it is an honour, besides being a pleasure, to be here on this historic occasion and to have the privilege of unveiling these two fine portraits of two fine men.
It is particularly fitting that today has been chosen for this ceremony, since it marks our own Prime Minister's twentieth year of loyal and devoted service to king and country.
Further lustre to the occasion- is added by the presence here today of the President of that great country which not only is our friend and neighbour, but was our ally in two world wars.
Of the two men we honour today, the one led us to victory in the first world war, and the other in the second. Now these noble pictures of two great Canadians, from the brush of distinguished portrait painters of world-wide reputation, find a happy and fitting home in the very heart and centre of the Canada they have both served so loyally and have loved so well.


Hon.   S@: Mr. President, Your Excellency, and honourable members: We have with us this afternoon one of Sir Robert Borden's oldest and closest friends, the Honourable Senator Charles C. BaMantyne. Senator Ballantyne was a member of Sir Robert Borden's cabinet from 1917 to 1920. and he is one of the senior members of the Privy Council of Canada. He was summoned to the Senate while a Conservative administration was in office, and until recently was Leader of the Opposition in- the Upper House.
I should like to call upon Senator Ballantyne for a few words.


Hon.   S@: Mr. President, Your Excellency, Mr. Prime Minister, honourable members of the Senate, and members of the House of Commons: I consider it a high honour and privilege to be invited to make a brief reference to my former Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Sir Robert Laird Borden, P.C., G.C.M G KC LL.D.
In the long line of illustrious prime ministers Canada has been fortunate to have had presiding over her destiny, no one stands out more prominently for distinguished devotion and service to Canada, the 'commonwealth of nations and the empire, than does my former Prime Minister.
The Right Honourable Sir Robert Borden was Prime Minister from 1911 to 1920, including the period of the first great war.
I was privileged to serve under Sir Robert as one of his ministers during the first great war years of 1917-18 and until his retirement, in 1920. I shall always cherish the memory of having been associated with my former Prime Minister during those years.
The Right Honourable Sir Robert Borden was held in high esteem not only by his colleagues in parliament but by Canadians generally, and was as well a recognized world figure.
After Sir Robert's retirement from the premiership our close personal friendship continued throughout the years, and it will always remain with me as a revered and pleasant memory.
May I be permitted on this historic occasion to refer to my old friend of long standing, the present Prime Minister, the Right Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King, C.M.G., who
has occupied the high office of Prime Minister for a Longer period than any of his Canadian predecessors, and who in a few months will have occupied it longer than any one else in the history of the British empire. It is remarkable that my former Prime Minister and the present Prime Minister both guided our country through great world wars and finally to victory.
It is fitting, therefore, that these two illustrious Prime Ministers should have their portraits placed for ever in these parliament buildings, as a constant reminder to present and future generations, and to the thousands of visitors passing through our portals, of the great and loyal service rendered by them to king and country.


Gaspard Fauteux: Mr. President,
Your Excellency, Mr. Prime Minister, guests of honour, honourable members of the Senate and of the House of Commons: The time has not yet arrived to appraise Mr. Mackenzie King's long political career. We are too close to him to see it in its true perspective, but we all know that history will class him as a great statesman. We all recognize that he is an outstanding parliamentarian. No man understands our House of Commons

Unveiling of Portraits
better than he does, and none has as much influence in it as he has today. In his many years of leadership he has contributed much to the decorum and1 dignity of the house.
As has already been said, this ceremony was arranged for today, June 10, to coincide with Mr. King's completion of twenty years in all in the office of Prime Minister. He has been a minister of the crown and the leader of his party for a still longer time, and has been for an even longer time a member of parliament. Mr. King is in years of membership the senior member of the Commons. He is dean of the house. I am sure we are agreed that he has shown in that long period remarkable qualities as a popular leader of men and, in parliament, a capacity to make friends without making enemies.
In his long term of office, Mr. King has had to solve many intricate problems, some of which threatened the unity of Canada. He has faced all such situations with caution and can look back over his long career with the satisfaction of having accomplished, in difficult circumstances, many hard tasks.
Mr. Mackenzie King has administered this country on the same broad principles as Macdonald, Laurier, Borden, 'and other leaders who were friends of minorities and pioneers in democracy and, above all, true Canadians. As members of the present parliament of Canada we are happy to be able to join together to commemorate Mr. King's long years of public service. We are pleased to be able to do this, irrespective of party affiliation, while Mr. King is still a member of parliament, and on the day of his completion of twenty years in the office of Prime Minister. We have felt that in no more appropriate way could we honour our present Prime Minister today than by giving his portrait a place in these halls of parliament, among those of other prime ministers whose lives are a part of the history of our country.
I am sure, Mr. Prime Minister, that all your friends who are gathered here on this memorable occasion, are very anxious to hear a few words from you.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. President, Your Excellency, and fellow members of parliament: You, Mr. Speaker, have given me a difficult task indeed. Of the kindnesses of all present, there are many acknowledgments I should like to make. I wish I felt equal to the least of them. I doubt if in the twenty years to which reference has been made this afternoon
there has been a moment when I have been as conscious of the extent of my obligation to others, and less able to give expression to the gratitude I feel.
I know I speak not less for others than for myself when I say how grateful we are to His Excellency the Governor General for having consented to honour this occasion with his presence, and to unveil the two portraits which he has unveiled this afternoon. It is a happy circumstance that we should have in our Governor General, especially today, one who is at once a Field Marshal and an artist. His Excellency has referred to the association of the portraits with one or other of the great wars. May I say to His Excellency that we have much in mind that he himself is a veteran of the two wars. We are indeed indebted to one who has had so valiant and decisive a role in war for lending to today's proceedings the association of his illustrious name.
We are also especially honoured by the presence at today's ceremony of the President of the United States. That you, Mr. Truman, almost at the moment of your arrival in our capital, should have expressed a wish to accompany His Excellency on this occasion, is an evidence of personal and international good will for which I cannot thank you too warmly. Your presence has added a note of exceptional significance. Those here assembled will never forget that they were privileged to see the President of the United States and the representative of His Majesty the King side by side in the central hall of our houses of parliament.
It is a source of pleasure to me to recall today that in 1919, at the time I became leader of my party and Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons, it was Sir Robert Borden who was Prime Minister. No one, I imagine, is in a better position than I am today to appreciate the strain and anxieties which Sir Robert experienced throughout the years of war. No one knows better than Senator Ballantyne how cordial at all times were the personal relations between Sir Robert and myself. I am glad it has been given to so intimate and devoted a friend of Sir Robert, one who was a member of his cabinet, and who is the senior privy councillor on the opposition benches in parliament, to speak today of the portrait of his late leader. The senator, I hope, will allow me to express to him my very warm thanks for his all too kind personal references to myself. They come, I know, from the heart of an old and true friend.
Unveiling oj Portraits

I am sure all of us who knew Sir Robert Borden will agree that the portrait by Mr. Kenneth Forbes, which we now see before us, is a worthy and striking likeness, and that it reflects great credit upon the artist. I should like, in the name of the government, to thank Mr. Forbes for the portrait he has painted of Sir Robert Borden, and to congratulate him upon it.
Your Excellency, I come to a very difficult part of what I have to say. How am I to express to my fellow members of parliament my appreciation of the honour they have done me in wishing to have the portrait of myself, by my friend Frank Salisbury, given a place on the walls of parliament? How am I to thank them for wishing to have it given an association with the portrait of Sir Robert Borden, in events which are outstanding in history? How am I to thank them for having selected today-the day on which I have completed twenty years of office-as the day for the unveiling of the two portraits? And how am I to thank His Honour the Speaker of the Commons for what he has just said?
In one thing I am fortunate indeed. It is that^ the artist, Mr. Salisbury, has found it possible to be with us today. Mr. Salisbury will be able to assure you that it was to his persuasion rather than to any expressed desire on my part that the portrait owes its existence. Perhaps nothing could better illustrate Mr. Salisbury's skill as an artist than what he has been able to make of me I I am indeed grateful to him for including me among the number of those to whom his brush has of itself helped to bring distinction.
After the many years I have been in parliament and in office, I cannot tell you what it means to me to find myself surrounded, as I am at this moment, by those with whom 1 have been most closely associated in the public life of Canada. It is an expression of friendship and good will on the part of political friends and opponents alike, much too moving to be acknowledged in words. I cannot begin to express what this occasion means to me today, or what it will mean to me for the remainder of my days. I can only thank you, one and all, and this I do with all my heart.
All too soon associations of the present melt into memories of the past. I am happy to think that those who have shared today's associations may not find the memory of them lacking in warmth or colour with the passing of the years. I even venture to hope

that, to those who seek a noble calling, the memory of this occasion will serve to lend a glow to public life and to reveal the richness of the rewards of public service.
(The proceedings were concluded by the singing oj ' O Canada".)
Thursday, June 12, 1947