1947-06-25

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:
That the name of Mr. Jutras be substituted for that of Mr. Dechene on the standing committee on industrial relations;
That the name of Mr. Beaudoin be substituted for that of Mr. Gingues on the standing committee on industrial relations;
That the name of Mr. Lafontaine be substituted for that of Mr. Pouliot on the standing committee on industrial relations.
Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the Quebec whip, the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Tremblay) asked me if I insisted upon being on the committee, and pointed out that the members serving on the committee would have to be always punctual. I do my best to attend the sittings of the house as regularly as I can; in that respect I am sure my colleagues will admit I do my best.
I should like to sit on the committee on industrial relations, if the sitting of a member on the committee would serve any purpose. But I do not see that anything has been changed by the expression of views of any member who has served on a committee. Moreover, the legislation to be submitted to the committee-I have received notice for a sitting this afternoon at three o'clock-is most contentious and of a dangerous nature. It is the open door to communism through international labour organizations.
Those who enjoy trips to Geneva, to New York and to labour conventions anywhere else in the world may find it wonderful. But there are communists who belong to and who control labour organizations in France and other countries. They will mix with our people.
Sugar

The fact that labour organizations are becoming more internationalized than ever is a menace to Canada and to the whole world. Some labour leaders think highly of international organizations. I believe in the right of labour men to unite; but I do not see why labour men should be controlled by outsiders, by foreigners, who implant communism in such international organizations, with the purpose of domination of all labour men by communism.
I stand against that; I protest against it. This is a warning. I know very well that if I had said this in a meeting of the committee I would have been given the cold shoulder by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) and by all those who believe in such international organizations and who place a premium on increasing bureaucracy at all times. All the parasites of Geneva will move to New York; they will be with big I.L.O. leaders like Jouaux, the French communist, and countless others from all over the world.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in response to requests made in this house recently I should like to make a statement on our sugar supply situation. Hon. members will recall that in my statement to the house on March 12th I said that the world sugar supply had been improving and that probable supplies available to Canada would be of the order of somewhere between 80 and 87 pounds per capita refined basis. That statement was made before any of the main sugar crops had been harvested. As a result of unusually fortunate climatic conditions the output of sugar from the current Cuban crop has considerably exceeded expectations, and instead of the estimated 5J million ' tons, it seems likely to reach almost 6i million tons. The international emergency. food council has, therefore, been able to increase its allocations to participating countries. Canada's share of this increase is 22,000 tons of raw sugar. After adjustment for year-end carry-overs our total allocation for 1947 has been set at 626.000 tons.
Sugar supplies however must be thought of as a continuing flow and we have, therefore, had to give careful thought to the prospects for 1948. In this connection we have had the benefit of consultation with our British and American colleagues and with other experts in the sugar trade. Our conclusion is that we cannot expect, and should not count upon a
[Mr- Pouliot.]
recurrence in 1948 of the phenomenal 1947 Cuban crop. The balance of probabilities is that the 1948 Cuban crop will be a good crop in comparison with normal, but could easily run one million tons below this year.
World production of sugar in the year ended August 31, 1946, was about 3J million tons below 1939 production. During the year ending August 31, 1947, world production should approximately equal the last pre-war year; but over a long period of years world sugar consumption has increased on an average by more than half a million tons per annum, so that under normal conditions world production would still be about 5 million tons short of demand. However, lack of purchasing power in Europe and Asia and the situation with regard to dollar exchange may very well reduce effective demand in these areas. Against this there are no invisible supplies in the western hemisphere and it remains to be seen what effect decontrol of sugar in the United States may have. It may be a year from now before this can be accurately judged.
At the time of my previous statement on March 12 it was anticipated that there would be an increase in Canadian production of beet sugar. It now appears that on account of abnormal weather conditions we may look for some reduction.
The conclusion we have reached is that while 1947 probable supplies seem likely to make possible the distribution of some seven or eight additional pounds of sugar per capita during the balance of this year, it would be prudent in the light of all conditions to plan for a greater than normal carry-over into 1948. The consumer's sugar ration for 1917 was increased by three pounds on April 1 and in effect by a further three pounds on June 9 through the de-rationing of jams, jellies, marmalade and honey. We now propose another increase of three or four pounds during the second half of this year. Two additional coupons will be declared valid in August and one or two late in November. At the same time we shall advance the industrial ration by ten points in each industrial category, which will put the basic industrial quota at ninety per cent of 1941 usage. Since the third quarter industrial quotas have already been distributed, the additional ten per cent will go forward as a supplementary quota during the latter half of July.
As hon. members know, the United States terminated its household sugar ration two weeks ago but has retained in full force its industrial ration. Our considered view is that we Should not follow that example in Canada. The main purpose, indeed I might say the

Questions
sole purpose of rationing is to ensure fair distribution at fair prices to all sections of the country and to all classes of consumers, whether household or industrial. Canada is a country of very great distances and in many sections is characterized by a rather thinly scattered population. Large industrial users of sugar are chiefly concentrated in a few areas. If sugar were de-rationed, ordinary business judgment might well lead most of these large industrial users to stock up heavily and such heavy restocking could absorb very large quantities of sugar, which in turn would almost certainly lead to disorderly distribution, and spotty shortages creating acute local embarrassment in many parts of the dominion. Our system of rationing is such that we cannot de-ration one class of consumer without opening up large gaps and loopholes in the system which would rapidly undermine it.
Our conclusion is that it is in the general interest, and particularly in the interest of householders and small businesses, that sugar rationing should be retained in full force at least until the 1948 supply prospects are clear, but at the same time to increase the rate of ration as rapidly as circumstances permit.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Will the minister
consider timing the release of additional sugar coupons to coincide with the harvesting of the fruit crops across the country? November would be quite late.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	Did the Minister of Agriculture or the Department of Agriculture receive a resolution from the Minister of Agriculture of New Brunswick regarding payment of a fair price on all potatoes sold below a fair market value?
2.	What action has the Department of Agriculture or the A.P.S.B. taken with regard to the potato growers of the maritime provinces who sold their potatoes below market value, ast outlined by agricultural prices support act,' 1944?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier, for Mr. Gardiner) :: 1.	A resolution was received by the agricultural prices support board from the Minister of Agriculture for New Brunswick recommending that payments be made to all New Brunswick potato growers who had sold potatoes at prices less than the price established by the board, under order in council P.C. 4295, for potatoes to be processed.
2.	The board decided not to adopt the recommendation contained in the resolution
on the ground that the proposed payments would be contrary to the principle of price support already adopted by the board on the recommendation of the potato delegation which met the board on October 1, 1946.


PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE-J. D. PORTER, TRUAX, SASK.
Mr. ARGUE:: 1.	What was the amount of salary and expenses paid by the P.F.A.A. to Mr. J. D. Porter of Truax, Saskatchewan, during the month of May, 1947?	.
2.	For what days was the above paid?
3.	For what work and in what part of his district?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier, for Mr. Gardiner) :: 1.	Nil.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.


CIVIL SERVICE-USE OF WORD &quot;COLOUR&quot; IN APPLICATION FORMS-&quot;CONGENIAL&quot; POSITIONS
Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North):: What positions are considered "congenial" for "a member of the negro race" by the civil service commission ?


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: As already stated, negro applicants for positions in the public service of Canada are entitled to and receive the same rights as members of any other race. No special positions are reserved for them, but an endeavour is made by the civil service commission to appoint them to positions the conditions of which will be satisfactory both to employee and to employer.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	What was the amount and retail value of alcoholic liquor sold in each province in Canada for the year ending March 3i, 1947, or the end of the fiscal year for each province?
2.	What were the sales and retail value of light wines and beer sold in each province for the above-mentioned period?


Mr. McCANN:: Return tabled.


PAYMENT OF 1944 PARTICIPATION CERTIFICATES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the d'ay:
Mr. MAX CAMPBELL (The Battlefords):: I had a question to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) but I see he is not in his place. I sent a copy of the question to his office, and perhaps it can be answered by another minister. Vi ill the
Inquiries oj the Ministry

Minister of Trade and Commerce indicate what progress is being made by the wheat board in making payment of the 1944 participation certificates?


James Joseph McCann: There is little I can add to the previous statements of my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Every effort is being made to expedite these payments, and it is expected that the forms for completion by farmers will be going out next month. Some time is bound to elapse, of course, between the receipt of these forms by the board and the actual commencement of the payments.


ADVERTISING OF CANADIAN PRODUCTS IN GREAT BRITAIN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. CHARLTON (Brant):: In the absence of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement of the Minister of Agriculture, as reported on page 4224 of Hansard of June 16, that advertising of Canadian cheese in Great Britain was not permitted, and the Canadian Press dispatch from London under date of June 25 last, quoting Mr. Strachey, minister of food in Great Britain that "there is nothing to prevent Canadians buying poster space to praise Canadian cheese," will the-
Some lion. MEMBERS: Order.


John Alpheus Charlton: -will the government now reconsider its policy and ascertain the facts-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. member knows it is against the rules to ask a lengthy question on the orders of the day. I suggest that he put it on the order paper.


Mr. GRAYDON:: It is too urgent.


John Alpheus Charlton: There are only a few more words: -with a view to advertising Canadian cheese and other food products in Britain?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I do not see anything so urgent about the question that it should be answered at this moment. I have had no notice of it and perhaps if it stands as a notice of question to be answered later it' would be sufficient.


SHIPPING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. E. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: In view of the heavy demand for transportation from Great Britain to Canada of returning Canadians and others, has the government given consideration to chartering ships for this purpose and, if so, what decision has been reached?
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): The Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) will be here on Monday and will give a specific reply to the question asked by the hon. member. I can assure him that at the present time there is in London a committee, under the chairmanship of the high commissioner, Mr. Robertson, representing five departments of government which is closely in touch with the situation.
. I shall take the liberty, through my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs, of cabling to England to find out exactly what progress has been made in connection with the matter referred to by my hoD. friend.


BEEF CATTLE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Earl Rowe: In view of the fact that a shortage of feed grain is indicated, especially in eastern Canada, will the government give consideration to lifting the embargo on beef cattle to the United States to avoid a possible glut on the Canadian market this fall?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Agriculture himself should answer that question, and I will have it brought to [DOT] his attention.

Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.



INTERIM SUPPLY BILL

Douglas Charles Abbott: That a sum not exceeding $95,299,99'1.78, being one-twelfth of each of the several items as set forth in the estimates for the fircal year ending

Interim Supply
March 31, 1948, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1948.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Douglas Charles Abbott: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1948, the sum of $95,299,994.78 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Abbott thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 363, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1948.
Mr. BRACKEN:: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Finance should explain to the house the necessity for this further interim supply.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall be very glad to do
that, Mr. Speaker. The house will recall that the following proportions of interim supply have already been granted: (a) One-quarter (3/12) of all items to be voted in the main and supplementary estimates for the fiscal year 1947-48; (b) an additional one-twelfth for certain special services of a seasonal or sessional nature as detailed in the schedule to the act; and (c) the full amount of two agriculture items for which total payments fall due early in the year.
This was intended to provide for all expenditures up to the end of June. [DOT] In practice, however, this does not follow, owing to the special nature of many of the activities that must be undertaken in the early part of the year and others where demands are normally heavy during the first few months, such as the sessional expenses of the Senate and the House of Commons.
I am asking now for a further one-twelfth to cover salaries and other urgent expenses payable within the current month and on into July. The form of the bill is exactly the
same as that of bills passed in previous years, and at this session. Of course I give the usual undertaking that the passing of this bill will not prejudice the rights and privileges of any member to discuss any estimates which are still outstanding.
Motion agreed to and the bill read the first time.
Mr. ABBOTT moved the second reading of the bill.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I desire to put on the record a matter which normally I think I should have brought up on the motion to go into supply, but I still think I am within the rules in bringing it up on the second reading of an interim supply bill. I shall not elaborate on the points to which I shall refer; I want to leave them with the members of the house and of the government for their consideration not only during the rest of the present session but also during the recess; because these points deal with the whole question of how in my opinion we should handle the public business in parliament in the future.
This has nothing to do with party matters, and I would ask every member of my own party as well as every other member of the house to feel free to criticize the suggestions I am putting on the record. I shall do no more than enumerate them now, because this is not the time to make a speech on the various matters with which they deal. These are my suggested improvements in parliamentary facilities and procedure:
1.	The time of sitting should be from one to seven p.m. each day.
2.	The system as to questions should be the same as they have in Britain: from one to two o'clock should be devoted entirely to inquiries of the government.
3.	Private members' day once a week, with amended rules to curtail the time taken and ensure wider range of subjects discussed.
4.	Supply motion at beginning of sitting once a week for the airing of miscellaneous grievances.
5.	The main estimates should be examined by standing or special committees, but preliminary discussion should take place in the house on the departmental administration item in each case so that a short general debate can occur before reference to committees.
6.	Any member to have the right to appear and take part in committee as if he were a member of it, where it is dealing with departmental estimates.
7.	Discussion and proceedings relating to estimates under consideration in standing and
Interim Supply

special committees should be printed and distributed under the same rules as the official reports of debates.
8.	Committees could sit in the morning, or while the house sits, or, in urgent circumstances, in the evenings. The number of members on committees who would be affected would be much fewer than the 245 members who at present are compelled to attend until eleven at night.
9.	Speaking time to be cut in half in committee of the whole.
10.	A private member should be given the privilege of speaking from another seat than his own, and if he does, then the Speaker should inform the galleries so they can identify the speaker. This may not be necessary if seating arrangements are changed.
11.	If a member has to read his speech, which I am doing now (a practice that should be discouraged) he should on verbal request be permitted to do so by the Speaker and Hansard should then make a note that it is being read and the reasons therefor as given by the member.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who wrote that?


Gordon Graydon: I imagine, Mr. Speaker, that these things will all be subject to amendment. I continue with the suggestions.
12.	Changes in Hansard should be made only on a question of privilege in the house, never by a member privately.
13.	Private chats between members in the chamber should be stopped. If they have to talk while a member is speaking, they should go outside to do so.
14.	Research help should be provided for the opposition to match the departmental squad which is to be observed in the secretarial gallery at three o'clock every day.
15. If it is to be considered an act of propriety and courtesy to give a minister notice of a question, then ministers should give notice to the house leaders of all statements they propose making on motions or orders of the day, and these statements should of right carry the privilege of a reasonable number of questions after the statement, or else they should be debatable for a limited time, at least as long as it took to make the statement.
16.	A larger amount of legislation should be initiated in the senate.
17.	There should be a rationing of debating time with a fair share for new members and rear benchers of all parties.
18.	Special debates, to be broadcast, such as leaders' speeches on address and budget speech and those of leading critics thereof, but no others.
19.	The government's full programme to be laid before all leaders and then before all members at beginning of the session in an informal multiple-party caucus. The time should there be budgeted and prorogation target set at the beginning of the session, not when it is too late.
20.	There should be a new seating arrangement for the chamber. This commons resembles a cathedral in shape and structure, if not always in decorum, rather than a debating chamber. The Speaker should be in the centre at the side with circular seating around him, and the press gallery behind the Speaker as usual, but because of that change, in a much more commodious form.


Mr. MITCHELL:: That would not be
following the tradition at Westminster.


Gordon Graydon: I know the minister has some ideas, but I want mine to go on record first.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Are these all yours?


Gordon Graydon: I continue.
21.	Daylighting in chamber instead of present artificial light. Transparent roof might be the answer.
22.	Acoustics and ventilation of chamber should be improved.
23.	Instal teletype as in Britain so that the proceedings in the chamber will be available for all to see throughout the buildings.
24.	The local improvements suggested in the paragraphs Nos. 22, 23, 24 and 25 should be submitted to experts in these matters for study and report.
25.	Rearrange diplomatic gallery to permit ordinary visitors to occupy these choice seats when they are not being otherwise utilized.
26.	Arrange for a suggestion box for visitors to say how they think house work can be improved to increase parliament's prestige and efficiency.


Some hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Graydon: Who has a better right to offer suggestions than the people who come here to watch us do our work? '
27.	The press should be called in to express their opinion on local improvements before changes are made.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to elaborate upon the suggestions; I am leaving them as a basis for discussion. Certainly they are not the last word on possible improvements. We have had so many committees on the subject and we have had so much talk from time to time that I thought I should lay down at least twenty-seven suggestions. The

Old Age Pensions
house can do what it likes with them, but I suggest that at least something be done.
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): I realize at once, Mr. Speaker, that this is not the time to debate the suggestions made by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon). Some of them are constructive; some of them are completely fantastic, but between this session and the next they will be carefully reviewed by the government. The house is indebted to the hon. gentleman, not only on this occasion but on' former occasions when he has emphasized the necessity for certain reforms in our rules and procedure. I should like officially to thank him for the keen and consistent interest that he has taken in these matters. I do not think the house should debate this now. I can only assure him that the government will review every one of his twenty-seven suggestions and *probably take action on at least some of them.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I want to commend the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) for laying his various proposals before the house; but I would draw the attention of the house to what I think is one of the failings. In the past year or two at least our present rules have not been lived up to. Personally I cannot see the value in devising new rules when the house will not live up to the present ones. So far as the reading of speeches is concerned1, I think it would, be a better idea to take them as read and hand them in. It would save a lot of time.
Motion agreed to; bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Sections 1 to 3 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and. passed. OLD AGE PENSIONS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, June 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Martin for the second reading of Bill 339, to amend the Old Age Pensions Act.
Mr. H. W. HERRIDGE (Kootenay West):: so valuable, to this country which he had served so well, and I think it will be of interest to the house-I will not take much time-if I read a letter that he wrote to the governor general of that day and the reply of His Excellency. I do so because these communications support very well my contention that the neglect of the needs of our pioneers and older citizens is a long established tradition in this country.
Let me read from a copy of the letter written by David Thompson in February, 1844 in which he outlines the statement of his circumstances and his distressed condition. He addressed the following letter to the governor general's secretary:
Sir,
Various circumstances, but principally an attack of the influenza of which I am recovered, have hitherto prevented my acknowledging the honour of the receipt of your letter of the 22nd ultimo wherein "His Excellency regrets that X should be placed in the unfortunate position I describe." Permit me to remark, something of an unusual train of circumstances has led to this state. In last May, when I informed His Excellency that I was about to proceed to Washington to dispose of my maps of the northwest countries, and Oregon territory, to the executive of the United States; His Excellency was pleased to claim the first offer of them to Her Majesty's government, to which I acceded. Had I proceeded to Washington and there sold my maps, and the information I possess on those countries, I should have been in a very different state from what I am at present. The last summer was given to the maps of the Oregon territory for Her Majesty's foreign office; the result of my labours, His Excellency informed me, was thanks without reward. When His Excellency was in Montreal, I had the honour of mentioning to him the maps of the boundary between Canada and the United 'States by the treaty of Lord Ashburton; he was pleased to say, "the maps are valuable and I wish to have them;" but candidly added, I cannot give an order for them until the money is voted by the legislature.
The members of the assembly to whom I mentioned this, all said, that for maps so necessary for the secretary's office, the sum required by His Excellency placed in the estimates will directly pass. I accordingly made the maps and sent ,them to Kingston, but His Excellency had no means at his disposal to recompense me. Thus passed my time from May to late in December without affording me the means of supporting my family, to do which, has obliged me to sell all that can be sold. Around every government there is a class of persons who have more or less passed their lives in its services, and thereby become dependent on it. His Excellency has been pleased to allow that my long services give me some claim on government, yet how very different is my neglected situation from many others; as many notice, among other instances, that of Mr. Borne, who for the sale of his seat in the House of Assembly for Rimouski, to Mr. Robert Baldwin received the handsome reeom-
[Mr. Herridge.l
pense of two hundred pounds per annum to take charge of the Chambly canal, for which his habits of life never qualified him.
I have the honour to be,
-	Sir,
Your obedient servant,
David Thompson.
That letter was written over one hundred years ago, yet how indicative it is today of present conditions! While deputy ministers have their salaries increased, while the same is true of boards of transport commissioners, the old age pensioners of the country are asked to live on an inadequate income. Let me now read the brief letter which forms the reply sent by the secretary of the governor general; Sir,
In reply to your letter of the 27th ultimo I am desired by the governor general to inform you that there are no funds at his disposal from which you can be remunerated for the time and labour you have bestowed upon the maps to which you refer.
As Her Majesty's government do not require these maps, there cannot be any objection to your endeavouring to dispose of them to the executive of the United States, which you appear to have the same chance of effecting as at the time you offered them to His Majesty's government.
His Excellency regrets the state of distress to which you describe yourself to be reduced, and would willingly relieve you from it, if it were in his power, but there are no funds available.
As I say, that was over one hundred years ago. How applicable it is today. That great man, who served Canada so well, whose skill and energy and work are only now receiving widespread recognition, died in his eighty-seventh year, and just a few days before his death he entered in his diary the following words: "This day I borrowed two and sixpence from a friend. Thank God for that relief." On February 10, 1857, [DOT] he died and he now lies buried in an unmarked grave in Mount Royal cemetery, Montreal. I have outlined these circumstances because they represent a tradition which has grown up in the country of overlooking our pioneers and aged citizens.
I am one of the younger pioneers of the district in which I live. I was not born there, but I have lived there since my boyhood, and all through the years I have witnessed the same sort of treatment meted out to these people who have built up the country. I remember playing with the Indians as a boy. The band of Arrow Lake Indians consisted of twenty-five persons at that time. When the white man first arrived in the Kootenay area, the Indian population numbered several hundred, but in 1906 that number had been reduced to twenty-five and today we have an Indian population of one. In 1903 the government saw fit to grant these people, as a

Old Age Pensions
recompense for this huge and rich territory which had been taken from them, a reserve which is 243i!5 acres in extent-


Mr. JAQUES:: Another instance of discrimination.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -upon which one person today has the right to live. I mention that because I believe hon. members of this house, particularly the C.C.F. group, believe that old age pensions should be paid to Indians. If measures of that kind had been taken years ago we would not have the tragedy of the dying out of an Indian band in that area.
As a boy I knew many pioneers and old-timers, and I delight to recall those olden days and to relive in my mind the scenes I saw. I had the opportunity of knowing a man who took part in the first discovery of gold on the mainland of British Columbia, out at the junction of the Columbia and the Pend-d'Oreille rivers. I refer to Nels Demers, a French Canadian who came from somewhere in the Ottawa valley just prior to the discovery of gold. He worked for years prospecting, timber cruising and assisting in government surveys. He devoted his whole life to the benefit of that area. I remember as a boy being asked to attend in his cabin when he was dying. I might say that in that period I remember Conservative speakers representing the provincial government telling audiences that old age pensions must be brought in. I think at that time certain European countries were held1 up as examples. Audiences were told that old age pensions would be brought in by the Conservative government of the day; that is, the provincial government. I remember the late Sir Richard McBride saying of the district in which I live: "Viewing as I do the great natural resources of this area, I cannot conceive of anything but increasing prosperity so long as labour is applied to these great resources". In the same speech I remember his referring to the plight of some of these older people who were living in log cabins along this lake throughout my constituency, whose later days were largely provided for by the generosity of friends and acquaintances, many of whom were unable to afford the amounts they gave for these purposes. I remember this one man in particular, Nels Demers, after whom a community is named to this day. He was a French Canadian who rendered great service to this country. He died in poverty because it was the tradition of the country, and is today, not to make adequate provision for our pioneers. I remember some of the first builders of the steamboats in the district from which I come, men who assisted in packing the machinery over the mountains, bringing pistons, boilers 83166-295
and things of that type on horse packs; men who built under the most difficult circumstances the wooden hulls of the craft that sailed on that lake.
I remember too the men who built the steamers which carried men from the United States for the gold rush, and later carried freight. I remember these older men very well. I remember a number of them particularly who after a lifetime of work on boats and steamships on the Columbia river were largely maintained by the generosity of their friends and neighbours, and ended their days in poverty. I remember something of the first lumbermen and loggers. I remember the building of some of the first mills and the bringing to the district of several hundred young French Canadians. I remember some of the older men who built the mills and did the logging in the very early days and made it possible to build the early cities and the early communities. I think of two men in particular, who were expert woodsmen, good millwrights, good all-round craftsmen. They worked unceasingly until they were over seventy-five years of age. I refer to a man named Miles Carrol, after whom a community on the lake is named, and another man known as Andy. I remember those two men passing their later days in poverty, supported by their friends and acquaintances.
I remember some of the early trappers and prospectors who went through what today would be considered untold hardships in packing through supplies to the distant traplines and distant prospects. I knew a man by the name of Dad McBain who gave up his traplines only after he was eighty years of age. He earned his living as long as he could; after he was eighty years of age he had to be maintained by the generosity of his friends and acquaintances. I know, too, of the plight of some of the early farmers in the district and some of the first war veterans, men who went to the South African war, and some of the early workers in industry, particularly in the smelters, in the latter part of the last century and the early part of this one. While I recognize that there are some improvements and some benefits, I maintain that in this bill we are carrying forward the Canadian tradition of not supplying the needs of our pioneers and aged people according to the resources of this country.
I am not going to repeat in detail the many valid criticisms made by hon. members with regard to this bill, or to present their arguments. I think that is unnecessary. Anyone reading Hansard can see again and again the sound and valid arguments put forward by members of all parties. In the observations

Old Age Pensions

I have to offer I do not for one moment criticize the provincial or other officials who throughout the years have been administering the Old Age Pensions Act. I have had some experience with old age pensioners, because I am in a sense an old-timer in that district. I tried to do what I could for hundreds of these old people, assisting them to fill in their forms and meet the requirements of the law. I must say in all fairness that I have found the officials most cooperative and most desirous of doing all they could for the old age pensioners according to the regulations and according to the circumstances. I know a good number of these officials. In fact I think it would be difficult to find an official administering the old age pensions provincially who is not looking forward to the day when the means test will be abolished.
I think the amount provided for in this bill is too low. I do not think there is any argument as to that; I shall not go into the legal arguments but will just give a concrete illustration or two. I know an old miner. He is close to ninety. He has worked for years in the mines and in the smelters of this country. Picture the position of a man who under present provision for old age pensioners in British Columbia-which is one of the highest in Canada-has to pay out of that pittance $15 a month for a single room; and that is quite reasonable under the present circumstances. I said to him, "How do you live on the amount of the pension?" He said, "I have a slice of toast and a cup of coffee for breakfast. Sometimes I get a friend to give me lunch, but I really aim at having one good feed a day in the evening. No one can justify the amount we are allowing these people under those circumstances.
Then I come to the rural dwellers, those who live in country places. I will say that in many instances they are in a better position. I know of dozens of men who have a shanty in a small town or country place, or out in the backwoods; they live under somewhat better conditions. It is possible for them to make the dollars go a little farther. Usually they do not have house rent to pay. They build log cabins or frame shacks. They carry water from a nearby spring, and they cut their own wood. One of those men showed me his budget recently. I am not going into details, but I can say that he is a man of seventy-eight years whose shack is neat. He keeps accounts, and in those accounts he had totalled his budget for the month of March. In the budget he had entered amounts for groceries, and the necessary items of clothing, including shirts and socks. Then he had bought small quantities of tobacco, and

there were no expenditures for other types of recreation, with I believe the possible exception of a weekly newspaper. His budget showed expenditures of $40.41, despite the fact that he was living with as much care as he could.
How can anyone say that the amount for which this legislation provides is sufficient for either urban or rural dwellers? I support the contention of those who say the means test should be abolished. It is one of the most unpopular tests with all those who work in the old age pensions branch. I have had many officials tell me of the great difficulty it presents to them, and the many cases of unfairness which have come to their attention.
I could give one or two illustrations. I have in mind an old gentleman in my home village of Nakusp of possibly 450 people. He was the first permanent white resident of that village. He had come down from Revelstoke on a raft years ago. That man is nearing eighty today, and for a period during the war he received the old age pension. Later in the war, because of a shortage of labour, he was persuaded by the people in the district to help out by doing a little extra work. He is a good craftsman, particularly as a shoemaker and carpenter, and a general handyman. For three or four months he earned at the rate of about $25 a month. What was the result? That old pioneer's pension was cut off. At that age he continued to earn his living, without reapplying for pension.
That is a state of affairs which should not exist in this country. I know of difficulties with which some of the old soldiers and old veterans who could not qualify under the War Veterans Allowance Act have been faced. These are men who possibly served in the imperial army. They may have seen service in the South African war or in the first world war. They may have built up some small competence in the form of homes or small ranches. But they hesitate to sign papers applying for pension because they want that property to go to their children. Upon their decease they do not want to have the pensions deducted from their estates.
I know of a farmer, a pioneer in my district, who came from the old country many years ago. He has built up a fine orchard and has been producing apples over a period of years. Now he is too old to work much and because of the difficulty of obtaining labour the operation of his orchard has become a problem. He does not wish bo sell the orchard, but wishes it to go to his grandson. If however that man were to accept a pension, a lien would be placed against the orchard. The result has been that he has not taken the

Old Age Pensions
pension. Today that old gentleman, who has spent large sums of money in this country, who has been a good citizen, who has cleared acres of land and planted a large orchard from which he has produced trainloads of apples and other fruits, is now in the position where he must live on what little he can make. All this is brought about because he does not wish to apply for an old age pension owing to the means test provisions.
I believe the qualifying age is too high. Today we find many old soldiers who cannot qualify for war veterans allowance, and who are prevented from getting old age pension. In this class we find many former miners and lumberjacks, men who have been working in wet mines, or under mountain conditions in the woods. Many of these men, because of the conditions under which they have worked, are prematurely aged. They are not fit to work in the mines or in the woods after sixty years of age, or at the very most after sixty-five years, and yet they are not able to obtain old age pensions. The same applies to some of the earlier industrial workers, those who have worked in the smelters and saw mills of the district.
Many of these men have lost their strength and their health. They are deprived of old age pensions until they are seventy years of age. I might point out that to some extent this situation has been recognized in British Columbia. The people of that province recognize that in this modern industrial society there are many people who have to be cared for before they reach the age of seventy years. In British Columbia we have what is known as the Social Assistance Act, which makes it possible for every citizen of the province, regardless of age, to receive amounts somewhat the same as those paid under the old age pensions scheme, or probably a little less.	They may receive these payments
whether their destitute condition is caused by economic handicaps, invalidism or other types of handicaps.
British Columbia has shown the way in this respect. And the fact that it is being done in that province is evidence that this legislation is insufficient when it does not permit a person to receive an old age pension until the age of seventy years has been reached.
There have been placed before the house many sound reasons, on humanitarian and economic grounds, for amendments to the bill. I support, as do the majority of the people I represent, an increase of the pension to at least $50 a month, the removal of this obnoxious means test and the lowering of the 83166-295}
qualifying age. Those proposals have the support of a great majority of the Canadian people.	[DOT]
When the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) suggested that hon. members were criticizing the bill on political or electoral grounds he was absolutely wrong. Members of the house, regardless of the party to which they belong, who criticized the deficiencies in the bill, are truly representing the people they have been sent here to represent. I support the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) that after second reading the bill be sent to a committee for examination. I believe that is a good suggestion, one of the many good suggestions the hon. member has placed before the house in this and in preceding sessions.
This bill is of great importance to a wide section of the Canadian people, and particularly to those who are in need of old age pensions. I am not one who believes one can get something for nothing, but I think the bill should be sent to a committee where it would be possible to examine officers of the Department of National Revenue. I do not hold the de luxe ideas of finance or taxation which are held by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Ashby). I do not believe that the people who accept the same philosophy of life as I do would hold to that theory of taxation. But we do believe that if presented with the facts, the people of Canada are willing to pay an amount of money sufficient to enable these old people to live on an adequate scale.
I listened with interest to the constructive speech delivered by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). I thought last night he delivered a most informative speech, and before concluding what I have to say may I point out that I was particularly impressed by his point that what we can do for these senior citizens of Canada can be more than something of a financial nature. I was interested in his point that this government and the provincial governments must be increasingly concerned about the welfare of these people in other respects, so that they may have an opportunity, not just quietly to live out the rest of their days in a well-fed and warm condition, but to be active participants in the life of their communities.
This is not a partisan question. I believe there is no subject in Canada at this time less partisan that that of making proper provision for our senior citizens. I do urge that the government give consideration to the wishes and views of the great majority of the people
Old Ago Pensions

of Canada who desire to see these people properly cared for. We boast of our natural resources, our wealth and our position in the united nations. We boast about our position in world affairs. But we must support that boast. We read the story of the past; we read the history of Egypt, Greece, Rome, the Latin countries and Great Britain. We read our own history. Any country which fails to provide adequately for its senior citizens finally goes into decay and oblivion. I believe that without unnecessary strain we can give these people sufficient with which to live lives of happiness and contentment.
In conclusion I just want to say to the minister that the bill presented to this house is no credit to our past, and holds out little hope for the future.


Mr. R. W. MAYHEW (Victoria, B.C.):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate for a number of reasons, all of which I do not intend to mention at this time. I represent a constituency in which there are a great number of elderly people. In the city of Victoria and on the southern end of Vancouver island we probably have more elderly people in proportion to the population than any other part of Canada. That is due to two reasons. When people are born on the southern end of Vancouver island, or come there, apparently they live longer than they would anywhere else. Next, it has without doubt the best climate in Canada, and elderly people like to come there, and they are welcomed when they come, so that they may live the rest of their lives in comparative comfort. I believe that their numbers will increase as the days go by. All the beautiful and comfortable spots are not in my riding; many of them are in the riding of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) who can enjoy the sunshine on the southern point of the island.
There is another reason for my speaking today. There has been a tendency in this house to ignore some of the real considerations and consequences of old age pensions-and I place some emphasis on the word "consequences". It is easy for an hon. member to rise in this house and expound the advantages of pensions. That is as it should be, and I am the last one to say that it should not be done. I think I have as much sympathy as anyone for elderly people, here or elsewhere.
There has been a tendency during this debate to pick numbers or amounts out of the air and argue the value of a certain amount per month to be given to old age pensioners. These people are encouraged to believe that

the country can and will provide more than it is possible to provide. For that reason I think it is bad for anyone to go beyond what he believes this country can reasonably carry out.
My main reason for speaking is that I thought that by using some of the facilities of the department with which I am fairly closely associated I could obtain figures which would be of interest and which would prove a guide to those who wanted to give real consideration to the problem before us. I have prepared a table showing the costs of about nine different proposals which have been made since the opening of the house and during this debate. Along with that table I am going to place on the record the number of people over seventy years of age, the number over sixty-five and the number over sixty years. Then anyone who wants to really find out what his scheme will cost can do so by simple multiplication.
This would apply only when there is to be no means test. There are many things that we could not find out when there is to be a means test, but with the figures I am giving a fairly accurate estimate of any scheme can be obtained provided there is no means test. Before giving this statement I should like to refer briefly to a statement made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) when he was replying to the minister who is piloting this bill through the house. He said, as reported on page 4290 of Hansard:
He has told us of the great plan that was put forward two years ago, a plan which the government voluntarily brought forward, declaring it would undertake to pay $200,000,000. And now he tells us that the proposals which are now before us will cost this nation only $20,000,000. He says that it is a great step forward. I suggest that if it is a great step forward it is a very short one. The government has laboured and brought forth a mouse.
The hon. member has probably had a lot of experience in bringing up mice with long tails, but I want to state to the house that in one instance he told the whole story while in another he told only part of it. He did not tell the house that the $20,000,000 was extra to the $70,000,000 odd which we are paying already. The total of those two amounts comes quite close to the $100,000,000 mark. He did not tell the house that the $200,000,000 offer is still there. So far as I know the government has not reneged in any way on its proposals to the dominion-provincial conference, and I am quite confident that the government will not renege on this or any other promise.
There is another thing which the hon. member did not tell the house, something which has not been mentioned here. Because of the increased exemptions provided by this bill,

Old Age Pensions
60,000	more people will receive these benefits than were receiving them in 1947. Surely that point is well worth stating. I suppose it was not in his interest at the moment to say anything about that. Nor did he tell you- probably he did not know-that the leader of the opposition rose almost immediately after the minister had resumed his seat and made his statement at once. If I were doing it that quickly there are a lot of things I would forget too, and that puts a different light upon it.
These figures I think are interesting. Six-sevenths of all the aged people who are receiving pensions under this scheme are receiving the full pension. Only one-seventh of these people have any deductions whatever made from their pensions. So the means test surely does not mean quite as much as some hon. gentlemen would lead us to believe in this debate.
I am supporting this bill, and I think I should give some reasons why I am supporting it.
Let me say first that I wish it were possible for us to divide our thinking into two classes. We have with us the men and women who are over seventy years of age, and we have also those who will be approaching that age in later years. For myself I cannot go back seventy years, but I can go back for quite some time. I can go back to the days when these men were working on our farms, probably five and six months out of the year, at $20 a month, and when they left the farm they would go to the logging camps and there get about the same amount of pay. I know because I have been there myself. I got the magnificent sum of $14 a month for the privilege of going to work in the dark and coming home in the dark, and of having pork and beans to eat almost three times a day, and for dessert dried apples and prunes; and going home quite fat on it all, and with lots of company.
These are the same men who worked in industry, when our industries were humble concerns and the men did not get full employment. Nevertheless if it had not been for their efforts we would not have had our industries today. These were the men who cut down our forests and turned our fields into the productive areas of today. They were the men who built our railroads and other public services on short time and on short pay. The big wages of today have not always been paid. It is only comparatively recently that men have been receiving big wages, since Henry Ford, whether he was right or wrong, raised the wages of every man in his employ by one dollar a day. That was the start of
our high wages. But those who are now seventy receive no such wage. These men have laboured long and diligently, and if a few of them have misspent their money I for one am quite prepared to forgive that, remembering the things they have done for us.
I wish we were in a position to segregate that group of men who have done so much for us from those who today are in an entirely different position. They are getting wages which enable them to set something by. They are putting money by in insurance and in annuities and in victory bonds, and if we do not take away from them the incentive to save, they will continue to save. My hon. friend here (Mr. Reid) says that some call that old-fashioned doctrine today. It is because of the old-fashioned doctrine and independence of these people that we are today standing in our places and giving them the praise we are giving them. But if we did what some suggest we should do in this bill we should rob these people, or those who come after them, of their independence and their initiative and their incentive to save. That is one reason why I do not want these fancy ideas. We can go too far in both directions. But there is a balance on which we can travel that is right.
We cannot raise the amount of money that some people suggest we should raise for old age pensions without adding more burdens to the small taxpayers who find it difficult even today to pay the taxes on their small incomes. Let us wait a while and see if we cannot get the exemption raised. Let us wait a year or two and see if we cannot catch up with our obligations to the veterans-and our bill for them this year is $430,000,000 or $440,000,000. Let us see if we cannot get some of these things cleared out of the way and then look again at the old age pension. Or at the worst, according to the minister, all we have to do is to wait for the completion of agreements with the two larger provinces, and then this $200,000,000 proposal would go into effect.
There is another reason why I am supporting this bill. I have studied and worked on this question longer, I think, than most members. I tried back in 1917, 1918 and 1919 to work out with our own group a pension superannuation plan. I have been studying it and figuring on it for quite a long time. The first speech I made in this house was on compulsory contributory old age pensions-or old age superannuation, as I prefer to call it. I was alone that year. In 1940 an hon. member was elected for Nanaimo who gave considerable support to that plan. Also in the same year the member for Edmonton East gave some
Old Age Pensions

support to the idea. But it died down. There was nothing much said about it until recently, and now it looks as if there is a possibility of getting old age superannuation going. But how are we going to do it? If you build the old age pension up to $50 a month, will those pensioners be anxious to separate themselves from five or six or seven per cent of their income-to provide what? What have they in the United States? There they get $29 and some cents a month. Are they going to part with a percentage of their income to get what some hon. members propose, a pension of $50 a month?
I will close this part of my remarks with this further statement, that we cannot have all the security we want in every respect. We cannot spend $250 million-$260 million it is this year-on family allowances, $430 million for veterans and $100 million for unemployment insurance. In other words two-fifths of all that we expect to collect this year will go in social security work. I contend that we must divide our money and decide where we are to place it. Are we to place it all on one thing, or on another? So far as I am concerned I want to see some day better hospitalization, at least cheaper if not free. I should like to see cheaper medicine and more doctors' help, because I think there is a preventive for the man who reaches seventy and has not sufficient money. You help him so that he does not get into the position of needing assistance from anybody, and I think that is much better for us all. Let us look at the thing calmly. Let us not put all our eggs in one basket. I feel quite sure that we will not. In our family allowances I believe that we went up to the rail as close as we dare go. I am not advocating going back on things, but I do say this: in whatever we have to do at the present time let us do it in a rational, practical and reasoned-out way.
I know Mr. Speaker, that you have ruled that the reading of speeches is not permitted. I have not been reading mine so far; probably it would have been better for the house if I had. I should like the privilege of reading for a little while because what I have to say now is pretty well filled up with figures, and unless they are right they do not mean anything at all.
Consideration of the various proposals listed on the tables I have before me gives a good picture of the increased cost of the alternatives as suggested in the house, and also how these costs will increase in the coming years due to the growth in population of people over sixty-five years of age. At the same time the population forecasts indicate that the number of persons over both sixty-five 
and seventy is going to increase very considerably relative to the number of persons between twenty and sixty-four-the years in which people are supposed to work-and more so relative to the wage earners and therefore income tax payers in that last group. The proposal in the bill under discussion is expected to cost the dominion and provinces some $92 million in 1948 without allowing for provincial supplements. By 1961 that scheme as it stands would cost $134 million.
The proposals as put forward in the dominion-provincial discussions in 1945, providing for $30 a month with no means test at seventy and with a means test from sixty-five to sixty-nine, would cost an estimated $299 million for the age seventy group and an additional $40 million for the sixty-five to sixty-nine group. This is, of course, an estimate and based on certain assumptions. If the same proportions were to come in from sixty-five to sixty-nine as are expected to come in under the means test from the seventy and over group, this $40 million would be increased to $62 million.
Various other schemes could be considered with and without a means test. The cost without the means test is a simple one to estimate if one relies on the population forecasts of the dominion bureau of statistics, but with a means test the cost of even the present proposal is nothing more than a good guess. The higher the allowable income is raised the harder it is to arrive at any reasonable figure because of the lack of information upon income of persons sixty-five years and over. In the 1941 census for example, we do know that some
30.000	persons between sixty-five and sixty-nine were gainfully employed with incomes above $500, wdiile some 22,000 were gainfully employed with incomes less than $500. The corresponding figures for persons seventy years and over were some 12,000 with incomes over $500, and 9,000 with incomes under $500. These were within a total population of 306,000 in the sixty-five to sixty-nine age group, and
459.000	in the age seventy group, thus leaving a very large number of unknown incomes from investment and other sources where the persons were not such as to be designated as gainfully employed.
If the Ontario figure of $40 a month were to be adopted, say with no means test at seventy and a means test between sixty-five and sixty-nine, the cost would run from around $326 million in 1948 to around $464 million in 1961.
The most popular suggestion among opponents of the present proposals is that of $50 a month, presumably with no means test and everybody over sixty-five to be eligible. This

Old Age Pensions
would cost some S560 million in 1948 and $769 million in 1961. It might be remarked at this stage that the estimated revenue from personal income tax in. the fiscal year 1947-1948 will be $515 million, and in the following year, when the present income tax changes are fully effective, this sum will be even less. Thus the cost of this proposal would very shortly exceed the total revenue from personal income tax by $100 million, with the difference becoming even greater as the number of older people increases and the rates of income tax at least remaining about the same.
Suppose a means test were provided with the $50 a month at sixty-five and the maximum income were limited to $600 inclusive of pension, this might well cut the cost of the preceding figures in half; and it would also provide $50 for everyone at sixty-five, but it certainly would cut most of the incentive for thrift from people who, in their working lifetime, could save with a view to having a retiring income in the neighbourhood of $600, or slightly more.
The drastic suggestion of the Social Credit party, calling for old age pensions at sixty and no means test, would cost $508 million if the pension were $30 a month, and some $847 million if the pension were $50. By 1961 the $50 pension would cost $1,105 million. Looking now at the relative increase in the population forecasts we see that the number of persons over sixty-five to every thousand persons aged twenty to sixty-four will be increasing from 132 in 1948 to 159 in 1961. That is, no matter which of the various schemes is decided upon, the cost of it is going to fall on a relatively smaller number of persons, assuming that the greater part of the greater source of revenue is going to come from the twenty to sixty-four age group. If we consider the number of gainfully employed,
we find that from 234 persons over sixty-five who might be eligible for old age pensions in 1948, there will be 281 of the same class to every thousand of the gainfully employed persons from twenty to sixty-four who will be providing a good part of the money necessary for old age pensions.
The number of income tax payers who would be apt to blame the old age pensions for the highness of their income tax is hard to estimate, since in 1945 there were about 2,180,235, while in 1941 there were only 871,488. If one were to take 1941 as perhaps a standard figure, and were to give pensions to everyone sixty-five years and over, then there would be more persons receiving pensions than there would be paying income tax.
It would take a little while to read this table, and I would ask the permission of the house to put it on Hansard. 'It is a table of costs for nine different plans, all of which have been proposed here. It includes a forecast of the number of people over seventy in the period 1948 to 1961, and also those between sixty-five and sixty-nine, and the total of the two.
There may be some questions about the number of 556,000 over seventy in 1948. It will be found that because of certain tables in the Canada Year Book for 1947 the figures as of that date are not the 1948 figures but rather, as I understand, the 1941 figures. In 1941 there were 459,000 elderly people over seventy, so that what is given here is, I believe, accurate. With the permission of the house I will put these statements on Hansard.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Has the hon. member the unanimous consent of the house?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The table follows:
Estimated costs of various old age pensions proposals
Proposal	1948	1951	19611.	$30 per month at 70 with means test	$ 92	(cost in millions) $101	$1342.	$30 per month-no means test, 70+	200	220	291Means test, 65-69 	40	43	53Total plan No. 2	$240	$263	$3443.	$30 per month at 65 with means test	$132	$144	$1874.	$30 per month at 65 with no means test	336	367	4615.	$40 per month-no means test, 70+	266	293	388Means test, 65-69 	60	65	76Total plan No. 5	$326	$358	$4646.	$50 per month at 65 with means test and maximum income $600 	$280	$305	$3857.	$50 per month at 65 with no means test	560	611	7698.	$30 at 60 with no means test	508	551	6639.	$50 at 60 with no means test	847	919	1105
Old Age Pensions

Population forecasts
Age group	1948	1951	196170+	
556,000	611,000	809,00065-69	
377,000	407,000	472,000Total: 65+	
933,000	1,018,000	1,281,00060-64	
478,000	513,000	560,000Total: 60+	
1,411,000	1,531,000	1,841,000


Mr. G. R. PEARKES (Nanaimo):: I
should like to start by complimenting the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Mayhew) on the speech he has made, because I realize what an exceedingly difficult speech it must have been for him to deliver. Coming as he does from the southern portion of Vancouver island, I know well that there is not an individual in the whole of British Columbia whose heart is warmer and who personally adopts a more generous attitude than the hon. gentleman. However, on this occasion he has to play the role of Mr. Hyde to the minister's Dr. Jekyll, because he is parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance and therefore may not feel at liberty to speak from his heart but must speak from the figures he has obtained from the study of his statistics.
I have not had the opportunity of studying those statistics. If I speak today I shall perhaps speak somewhat more from my heart than from my head. I also come from the southern end of Vancouver island, and I also claim a high percentage of elderly people living in my constituency, people who have borne the brunt of the great days of our expansion, people who went out many years ago to the prairies and struggled in those homestead days. As a homesteader myself I know something of the hardships of homesteading, although I cannot appreciate the hardships undergone by the earlier settlers, those who today are in the sixty-five to seventy class.
Those people from the prairies moved out to British Columbia partly because the climate is milder, partly perhaps because of the scenery, partly because they thought that the dollars they had saved would carry them further in the milder climate of British Columbia, and perhaps because in more recent years they have realized that the old age pension paid in British Columbia is higher than that paid in some other provinces.
We have therefore a large number of these elderly people who have come to the southern portion of Vancouver island. Many of these come from the prairies. Many of these in the days when labour was cheap, interest was high and the cost of living was low, thought they had saved enough money to take care of

their old age. Now the days of low wages have gone. We have high wages today. The days of high interest rates have also gone, and investments made twenty or thirty years ago by the savings of people who have tried to exercise the quality of thrift do not bring to them anything like the returns that they had hoped would be brought in in their more advanced years.
I am quite certain that the strain of toil and the hardships they experienced in their earlier years when they were building up our western country are taking their toll in the health of these people in their more advanced years, with the result that, with diminishing income from the savings which they have put into bonds, they find they have not enough today to meet the higher cost of living. Their capital is diminishing because they have had to pay hospital expenses, which in the pride of their youth and middle age they never thought they would have to incur. The result is that many elderly people living in my constituency are scraping along in the greatest possible difficulty.
I have visited their shacks, not in the main part of Victoria but in the outlying districts, and there is poverty there among elderly people. It has been said that the younger people of today, the sons and daughters, should provide for their parents in their advanced years. I know that is the philosophy that was accepted perhaps forty years ago when it was regarded as the responsibility of the son or daughter to keep the father and mother in their declining years. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that that is the philosophy that might be interpreted in the words of the catechism, where one is exhorted to be content to live in that state of life to which it has pleased Almighty God to call him. But I suggest to you also that the majority of hon. members would not be sitting here in this house if they had been content to accept that philosophy. It was because they were not prepared to accept the circumstances of life into which it had pleased God to call them in their early days that they or their fathers migrated to this country to help to build up their substance and livelihood here.

Old Age Pensions
I think it is a mistake-it is an attempt to continue the trend of an age which has gone by-to suggest that the sons and daughters of the poor are responsible for keeping their parents in their old age, because the sons and daughters of the poor have had additional handicaps to overcome in order to get their education. Surely we are not going to ask the sons and daughters of our poorer inhabitants to carry the responsibility of providing for their parents in their old age. I suggest we have come to a more enlightened era, and that the people as a whole are prepared to look after the aged of this land.
I am not going to repeat all the arguments which have been advanced, I think from all sides of the house, pointing out that the provisions made in this bill are not adequate. I am sure I am speaking for a great many people from the southern portion of Vancouver island when I say it will be with bitter disappointment that they learn of the extent to which the government is prepared to help them at the present day by the increases in the old age pension and by the slight relaxation of some of the regulations in connection with what one may call the means test. There will be bitter disappointment because those aged people had been buoyed up with the hope that a more generous contribution was to be made to them. The feeling amongst a great many of the working men on Vancouver island is such that they would welcome an opportunity of being able to provide for their future by some form of compulsory savings. I dislike the term "compulsion", but we have to remember the outlook of the younger men- In my day we drove teams for a living, and we spent our money freely. While the logger's of today spend their money freely too, many of them have told me that the bugbear before them is the fear of a poverty-stricken old age, and that they would welcome a scheme which would force them to contribute towards some provision for that period in their lifetime. We cannot wait longer.
It is with regret that I see this rather halfhearted measure which has been brought in. I intend, however, to support the bill, because I wTould not deny for another day the meagre increase which is being granted to the aged people. I hope the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) is really serious when he says that this is only intended to be a first step forward, however short that step may be.
There is just one other point I should like to refer to, and it has to do with the blind. Reference was made last night by the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Rinfret) to the desirability of granting pension to the blind 83166-296
at an earlier age. In the interests both of the blind themselves and of the national economy, I should like to urge that the pension be paid to our Canadian blind at an earlier age than forty. It may be desirable to pay it at sixteen, or at twenty-one. During those years between twenty and forty the blind man is learning a trade. If he can be given assistance to enable him to go on and learn a trade, it seems to me that he will have a reasonable opportunity of making a livelihood later on in life. But if on the other hand he is denied an opportunity-because he is not granted that pension until he reaches the age of forty- of taking the courses which are necessary in order that he may learn that trade, it seems to me that he will never learn the trade but will always be a burden on the state. I am not at all certain that the whole matter of pensions to the blind should not be removed entirely from the Old Age Pensions Act. They are two entirely separate forms of pension; the conditions which are applicable to the aged are not applicable to the blind.
I hope that at some future time the Minister of National Health and Welfare will give careful consideration to the possibility of bringing in a separate act for pensions for the blind. But in the meantime I hope he will give consideration to reducing, from forty to twenty-one, or even to sixteen, the age limit at which the blind may first receive their pensions. I know that is the desire of many of the societies which look after the blind, because I have had letters from British Columbia urging that such a step be proposed.


Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: I had
not intended to take part in this debate, Mr. Speaker, but in view of some of the statements which were made by some hon. members on the opposite side of the house, I feel obliged to make a few comments at this time. The people of Canada have waited for a considerable length of time for this bill amending the Old Age Pensions Act. High promises were made during the war. At no time were those promises greater than they were during the war loan campaigns which were conducted in this country. As a result of those promises, the hopes and expectations of the people were raised to a high level. Today the people remember that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said then that unless that new order were well on its way before the end of the war, the people might look for it in vain. The people are now beginning to wonder whether they are to look in vain for that new order. They are wondering whether or not those fine promises made by the federal government during the war were just bribes

Old Age Pensions

for the purpose of getting them to make the sacrifices which were essential in order that we might win the war. I would say that the legislation now before the house is an insult to our senior citizens and, to my mind, constitutes a deliberate breach of faith on the part of the government. I realize that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) has told us that this is merely a breathing spell. But surely, two years after the war, the old age pensioners have a right to expect to do more than just breathe. They have a right to expect to eat, to live and to clothe themselves in comfort. No one, by the wildest stretch of imagination, could say that this bill will provide a decent standard of living for our senior citizens.
I do not intend to go into any detailed criticism of the bill. However, in passing I should just like to say, as other members of this group have said, that I criticize the bill for the following reasons. It does not increase the pension to $50 a month; it does not provide for reducing the age to sixty; it does not eliminate the means test; and it does not provide for paying a full pension to a married couple where only the husband is of pensionable age. I realize that it provides for the couple being able to have an increased amount of income of their own, but at the present time it does not provide for paying any pension to the wife if she is under pensionable age. We believe the act could very well be modelled along the lines of the War Veterans' Allowance Act, which provides a full pension to married people, no matter what the age of the wife may be.
Furthermore I cannot see any reason why a blind person must reach the age of forty before receiving a pension. Surely a blind person at the age of thirty may be in just as great need of help as one at the age of forty. We feel that the age in respect of blind persons should have been reduced to twenty-one. I have never heard any justification for the level being set at forty.
Furthermore we believe a pension should be paid to all people who are physically incapacitated and therefore unable to take care of themselves. The minister has made it clear that he believes in a contributory scheme. As a matter of fact I believe the majority of the parties in the house, apart from this group, have taken a similar line. But I suggest that those who argue along that line fail to remember, as was pointed out by the leader of this group, that the scheme we now have is a contributory one. I say that because in order to receive the benefits under the act the individual must have been contributing to the general consolidated revenue fund of this country for the past twenty years, either
[Mr. Quelch.l
through direct or indirect taxation, or both. And let us not forget that today around a billion dollars is taken from the people in indirect taxation. It is becoming the greatest source of revenue. Therefore all those people who have been in the country for twenty years have been contributing daily-


Mr. BLACKMORE:: No matter how poor they are.
Mr. Q.UELCH: -to the fund from which pensions are paid. Therefore what possible argument can there be that we should have some form of contributory scheme, when in fact we already have one?
So long as production is limited, it means that everyone has to be willing to have just a little bit less in order that persons of pensionable age may obtain a pension. On the other hand, if we can develop the resources of this country to their fullest extent, and maintain the national income at around $12 billion, which should be possible, then it would be possible to pay substantial pensions to these persons without reducing the standard of living of the rest of the people.
To those who believe in another type of contributory scheme, let me say this: There is nothing to prevent an individual from indulging in that type of contributory scheme today, if he so desires. He may do so by taking out a government annuity. But the individual with whom I am concerned is the one who is not financially able to do that. No form of contributory scheme will help that individual; and there are many thousands of them.
The minister has argued that there is nothing tp prevent the provinces from increasing the amount of pension, if they so desire. Time and again members have asked, "What is your province going to do?" I would remind the minister of what was said yesterday by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hlynka), that this was not the stand taken by the Prime Minister in June, 1931. But I would argue this phase of the question from a different point of view, because people's ideas change, and perhaps the ideas held today by the Prime Minister are quite different froih what they were in 1931. I can well believe that any man who went through the thirties in office would change his opinion.
The obvious reason why the responsibility must rest with the federal government is that that government alone has the power to control the issue of currency and credit, and to control it in terms of public need. That is the familiar phrase used to a great extent by the Prime Minister during the campaign of 1935. It is possible that since then he has changed his mind with regard to whose responsibility

Old Age Pensions
it is to pay old age pensions. He probably realized that the only governing body in Canada which would have the power or the ability to pay a substantial old age pension is that body with the power to control the issue of currency and credit, because he then warned the people of the great danger we faced from certain money barons, and promised that he would institute measures effectively to control them. In fact he went so far as to say that a great battle would ensue in parliament.
What is the situation when a government fails to maintain the proper control of currency and. credit, so that it is available in terms of public need? We saw what happened in the thirties. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance told us about the way in which the pioneers worked, and that they obtained little for their work. He seemed to be under the impression that people should be prepared to do the same today, and that the ones who are working are able to obtain a far greater amount for their work than they were in those days. But let us remember that the same people went through the thirties. Many of them had saved. What happened to the savings of those people in the thirties? Did what happened in the thirties encourage people to save for the future? Many people in the thirties had their total life savings wiped out. Some of them had been contributing to life insurance policies for years, and lost these policies. Life insurance policies were being cancelled on a wholesale scale. What guarantee is there that exactly the same situation will not occur in the future? And if that situation develops again, of what help will a contributory scheme be? It will be just a similar sacrifice.
Many hon. members on the other side of the house have asked: Where will the money come from to pay pensions of the kind you are advocating? I certainly regret to hear that cry echoing through these halls once more, because that was the cry we heard from 1935 to 1939, when we had half a million people unemployed, when we had a great number of people in dire need in Canada; and when time and again members in the house suggested effective measures should be instituted to take care of those people we always heard the same old cry from members on that side of the house: Where will the money come from? Then the minister of finance of that day would tell us, "It is not possible to raise any more money by taxation, and the only money the government of Canada can get is the money it obtains from the pockets of the people." We hear exactly the same cry today.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson) tells us he has listened to social credit for three years and does not yet understand it. Let me ask him this: Does he understand the present financial system? I am satisfied he does not. I tell him it is easier to understand social credit than to understand the present financial system, because social credit is based upon reason while the present financial system is not.


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: Nobody else here understands social credit, either.


Victor Quelch: Between 1935 and 1939, when this government was in power, we were told there was no money to provide essential services to the people of this country, that there was no money available to put people to work. And yet, within six weeks of the declaration of war the government found another way. They got the chartered banks to create for their own use $200 million of new money; and speaking in the house the then minister of finance said that the money was created in order to provide employment. If within six weeks of the declaration of war $200 million in new money could be created to provide employment for the people of Canada, why could it not have been done six months before war was declared?
Let hon. members opposite remember that well, for not once in any year during the war did we ever finance the war by taxation, or by borrowing savings alone. Nearly $5 billion in new money was created during that time.


John Lambert Gibson: That is why we have inflation now, is it not?


Victor Quelch: No. We have it for the simple reason that fifty per cent of the production was drained away to meet war needs. If that fifty per cent of production had been available to the people, there would have been no inflation, and we would have had the highest standard of living this country has ever known.
But it took a war to force the government to change its financial policy. It is a strange thing that the government are prepared to adopt a sound financial system-and I should not use the word "sound"-to adopt a financial system which will make it possible to maintain production at the highest level during a period of war, in order to save their skins, but they are not prepared to adopt it in peace time to meet the needs of old age pensioners.
During the war we heard time and again the cry that no financial limitation would be allowed to impede the war effort, that the only limit to our war effort would be the men
Old Age Pensions

and materials available to carry it out. Apparently it is no longer a question of men and materials; it is a question of how much we can afford, where we shall get the money, or what will be the financial cost. I should like to say that it is not a question of whether we can afford to do this; but rather, that we cannot afford not to do it. If we want the present system to survive; if we want to retain those things for which we fought, then I say that we shall have to make goods available to people who are aged and physically incapacitated. Otherwise we shall certainly be guilty of hypocrisy in so far as what we said during the war is concerned, and I am now referring to what the government said.
I will give another reason why we cannot afford not to adopt measures of this kind today. I should like to refer to what was said by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) in his budget speech. In that speech the minister intimated that we cannot expect to maintain the present high level of production, the present high level of income and the present level of employment.


Mr. MARTIN:: I do not want to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but I am sure he will agree that he is going a little far afield.


Victor Quelch: I believe that what I am now saying has a greater bearing upon whether or not we can afford to pay 150 a month to the old age pensioners than anything that has been said since the debate started. I think the minister will agree that the main reason why pensions are not increased at the present time is the cost. Will the minister deny that? He said that the provinces should do this, but I have pointed out that the provinces cannot hope to be able to do it unless a financial policy is adopted which will maintain prosperity in this country so that they will be able to find the money with which to do it.


Jean-François Pouliot: And because of gifts to other countries.


Victor Quelch: I think the minister will appreciate that I am coming right to the point. The Minister of Finance said that we could not hope to maintain the high levels of income, employment and production because of a lack of effective demand. That was due, first of all, to the fact that war savings were being spent rapidly and would soon be exhausted; second, that our programme of reconversion was rapidly approaching its end, and, third, that the foreign credits which had been made available to other countries in order that they might buy our goods would soon be exhausted. When that time is reached there will be a lack
of effective demand and no industry can continue to produce unless it can sell its production.
This is the point I wish to make to the minister. One of the finest ways to maintain effective demand in this country is to pay a decent pension to our old age pensioners. I gathered from the statement of the parliamentary assistant that the cost of paying pensions of $50 a month at age sixty-five would be around $508,000,000, and that the cost of paying pensions of $50 a month at age sixty would be around $1,000,000,000. We remember that during the 1930's the United States and Canada adopted minor pumppriming operations. It is now realized by all economists that the reason for the failure of those experiments was that they were not on a large enough scale. The reason for the tremendous increase in production during the war was that large sums of money were spent which, in turn, created a great demand for goods.


William Ross Macdonald: I believe the hon. member is going beyond the scope of this bill. He has entered into a discussion of our financial system, a discussion which would be more appropriate to a budget debate. I suggest that he endeavour to confine his remarks more directly to the bill which is before the house and which relates to old age pensions.
Mr. QUE'LCH: I doubt if you could tell me how we are to finance old age pensions of $50 a month at age sixty, but I am trying to point out, through you, Mr. Speaker, how that can be done. There is no use in my saying that it can be done without suggesting ways and means whereby' it can be done.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member was discussing what took place during the 1930's, and I hardly think that such a discussion would fall within the scope of this bill.


Victor Quelch: To come back again to the statement made by the parliamentary assistant that it would cost around a billion dollars to pay pensions of $50 a month at age sixty, we found it quite convenient to provide foreign credits of around $2,000 million extending over a number of years, and during the war we found it quite convenient to make a gift of a billion dollars to Britain in one year. I suggest that, if it were possible to make a gift of one billion dollars to Britain during the war it should be possible to make a gift of a billion dollars to our old age pensioners.


An hon. MEMBER:: Every year?


Victor Quelch: That would help to maintain our production at the high level of $12,000

Old Age Pensions
million a year. Do hon. members remember what our income was before the war? I do not want to discuss that because I would be ruled out of order, but our production today is more than double what it was before the war. The result is that we have at least one-half more income today than we had before the war. If anyone had suggested in 1930 that we could double our production and income in three years he would have been laughed at. I do not think anyone will dare to challenge the statement that our income can be maintained at a level of $12,000 million a year. The Minister of Finance told us that the level of production this year will be around $12,000 million, and if we can maintain our income at that level we should have no difficulty in maintaining old age pensions at a satisfactory level even if it cost the country around one billion dollars.
After all, it is not a question of money; it is just a question of goods. It is merely a question of whether or not we in this country can produce a sufficient amount of goods to give our old age pensioners a standard of living of at least $50 a month. That is all it amounts to. Surely we can follow out the same policy which was followed during the war that no financial restrictions shall be allowed to impede our peace effort; that the only limitation will be the men and materials available. If goods are available to provide old age pensioners with an income of $50 a month, then it is up to the government to see that the financial policy of this country is such that that can be made possible.
Before closing, I should like to refer to one statement made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) during this debate. This is a statement which he has made on several occasions in the house during this session. I presume it is supposed to be a bit of profound wisdom. The minister has said that the only real money is that which is hard to get. Let me say to the minister that that kind of statement does not come well from a Minister of Labour, because a hard money policy is a deflationary policy and, under a deflationary policy, unemployment increases. It seems strange that the Minister of Labour should advocate in this house what in reality is a deflationary policy under which labour would suffer greatly.


Mr. D. F. BROWN (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, like the previous speaker (Mr. Quelch) I had no intention of taking part in this debate, but I should like to make two suggestions to the government which may be of value in the future. I should like to suggest to the previous speaker that he read this
legislation and study it. I am sure the province of Alberta will be very happy to contribute to their old age pensioners the amount which they may now meet under the statute.


Mr. LOW:: If the dominion would keep their hands out of our pockets, probably we could.


Donald Ferguson Brown: This is a delicate matter and one that should be gone about carefully, honestly and sincerely. It is not one about which statements should be glibly made. When people get around the conference table, as many members of this house hare seen at the dominion-provincial conference, and the Minister of Justice asks one provincial premier how much he wants in dollars and cents for the rental of certain taxation privileges, and the provincial premier gets up, wrings his hands, and eloquently talks about everything else, including the weather, and then sits down, how can you hope to come to an agreement with such people? However, that is not the purpose of my remarks today. I am making no apologies for taking up the time of the house very briefly on this bill, because other duties in the house have made it impossible for me to take the part in its debates that I would like to have taken.
One of the greatest ills that inflict mankind today is fear, the fear of poverty, which coupled with the fear of old age brings on the fear of disease and of pestilence. I would therefore like to commend the government on this step which it has taken. As the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) so eloquently said last night, this is merely one step, but it is a very valuable and worthwhile step, and I commend the government for taking it. I think we are all agreed that it is one of the steps towards the goal towards which we are heading. I know that the government is conscious of that fact.
Persons of advanced age are not desirous of getting something for nothing. I know that the government is conscious of that fact and that it is trying to work out a system of contributory old age pensions which will be paid as of right' to all needy individuals who have attained a stated age. I do not suggest of course that such a plan would eliminate all disease, but it would go a considerable way in bringing comfort and contentment for people of advanced years. It would eliminate many of the mental ills with which they are confronted, and would thereby prolong human existence.
One suggestion I would like to make-and this was ably covered by the hon. member for Halton last evening-is with regard to persons suffering from total disability caused by diseases such as arthritis and paralysis. I am
Old Age Pensions

sure all members of the house are pleased that the government has included in the bill provision for persons who have become incapacitated by blindness. I recall no one in the house saying that he was not in favour of it. The door has thus been opened. There is a large class of people who are afflicted with other diseases which partly or wholly incapacitate them, and these people are in a position similar to if not worse than that of those I have mentioned. Members of the house will recall many cases in their own experience. I remember one of my constituents, an unmarried woman of advancing years, who has done a great deal of good in her community both in public and private matters. I know that such persons, who have no income whatsoever, would be greatly benefited by a provision of the kind which is being made for the blind.
Some time ago I had some correspondence with a friend who is suffering from a form of paralysis which unfits him from earning a living. This gentleman forwarded to me a copy of a resolution which has been submitted to members of the house. I do not know that it went any farther. It was from the Council for Guidance of the Handicapped of Vancouver, British Columbia. While the resolution did not specifically ask for a pension for the handicapped, I am sure it would be of great advantage to them. Since the door has now been opened I think the government would be well advised to take under advisement in due time assistance to people who are suffering from such handicaps as these.
There is another class of persons who have not so far as I am aware been mentioned in this debate. There are over 130,000 persons over whom the Dominion of Canada has legislative control which amounts to a form of wardship. I refer of course to the Canadian Indians, the first residents of this dominion. A great many of them have not had the opportunities and the background of education which members of this house have had, but I am sure that if they were given an opportunity to help themselves, free from unrfeasonable restrictions and free to enjoy a sense of equality, they would do great credit to this country. Here again, however, the fear of poverty and old age has given many of them a sense of inferiority and frustration which finds expression in resentment and unrest. I know that the government is giving consideration to these matters. The house recently adopted a report of the Indian affairs committee recommending the giving of old age pensions to the Indians. While realizing that the provinces make some contribution to old age pensions, I would urge upon the federal government, whose wards

these Indians are, that some form of pension be introduced at an early date for the benefit of our Indian population. I am sure that the expenditure involved would be of great assistance in raising the standards of our Indian population and in carrying out the endeavour of the Indian affairs committee, to help the Indian help himself.


Mr. R. R. KNIGHT (Saskatoon City):: Mr. Speaker, I attempted to get into this debate immediately after the speech of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), so that I might congratulate him upon his delightful language and upon his ability to tell stories of the pioneering days in British Columbia. I wish he could be persuaded to write a book of those experiences so that they may have a wider circulation.
We are all anxious that this bill should reach the committee stage, and I shall delay the house for only a moment or two so that I may put on the record, in what I hope will be a concise and brief form, those things in which this bill is to the members of this group something of a disappointment. In the first place, I think the bill provides too little money for people of pensionable age. Second I think the pensionable age is too high. Third I think that the bill provides, even with the increase to S30, a standard of living no better than $20 was before the period of the war.
Next I would say that the bill does not abolish the means test. I would say that it puts the responsibility for the payment of the increased pension upon the provinces, and by so doing, at a time when national unity is the thing which this country needs above all others, it continues the dominion-provincial dog fight and initiates an interprovincial one. Next it does not provide that old age pensions should be, as I think they should be, a purely dominion responsibility. It does not provide that uniformity of pension which we think is desirable across the country,
When one examines the bill closely he finds that it does not imply that any province of necessity must increase its pension; it merely guarantees 'to that province seventy-five per cent of whatever amount the province decides to pay, up to $30. But if that province, as I interpret the bill, decides to pay a lesser amount, there is no reason, so far as this bill is concerned, why the province should not do so.
In view of the small amount of increased payment under this bill, we must take notice that it does not provide for any medical services or any supplemental benefits for persons over seventy such as is provided, for instance, in Saskatchewan and in some other

Old Age Pensions
provinces. While I am speaking of the western provinces, I might say that I do not think this bill really provides an increase in pensions in the four western provinces at all, unless those four provinces decide to carry on these supplemental benefits which they have been paying and which, I am quite sure, were considered as a temporary amelioration pending the agreement between the provinces and the dominion, or pending legislation by which the dominion would assume its proper responsibilities.
Finally, I think we should consider that the sections of the bill which is now before the house are a sufficient proof that what Canada needs is an over-all measure of social security for all the people of Canada upon a dominion basis.


Mr. W. GARFIELD CASE (Grey North):: One could talk at great length on this important social measure, but I shall be brief. I feel that I should like to make a contribution to the debate and draw to the attention of the minister and the government what I consider the true position today. The real challenge is for the government to institute the proposals they made to the provinces in 1945. They still have access to the same fields of taxation that they had at that time. It would have been accepted as evidence of good faith had they written into the Old Age Pensions Act $30 a month without a means test. I could talk at considerable length with respect to the means test. I consider that the means test puts a premium upon thrift. In other words, as one grows older he approaches old age with the fear that his resources are insufficient. Realizing that he must reduce his resources still further in order to claim a pension, he is more apt to do so.
The provinces have sought, within the limit of their resources to deal generously with the pensioners. Ontario is particularly to be complimented on instituting almost immediately an over-all .pension, depending upon the passage of this legislation, of $40 a month, subject, of course, to need. In addition to that, Ontario provides many other social benefits, which were referred to by the previous speaker, to the old people. If we had the pension that was promised of $30 a month without the means test the people would then feel a sense of security, and that thej' were being rewarded for services rendered. Of course, when I speak of the removal of the means test I do not mean that it should be compulsory to accept old age pensions as we understand family allowances today. That is to say, I am suggesting that it should be necessary only to prove your age if you
want to receive a pension, and that the pension likewise would be subject to taxation. If your income were sufficient without the pension and you obtained the pension only to increase it within taxable limits some of it would be returned.
Another matter, which was touched upon by the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown) and which I wish to underline and bring to the attention of the minister and of the government is the position in which we find the old people in the Indian tribes today. It has been my privilege to serve on the Indian affairs committee. Recently we passed a resolution urging upon the government that they give consideration to granting old age pensions to Indians. After that resolution was passed, numerous delegations who appeared before the Indian affairs committee dwelt upon the fact that this was one of the finest things the committee had done. The chairman, fortunately, cautioned them to understand that it had not yet been enacted but was only a recommendation on our part.
The very fact that the bill removes the nationality clause from the requirements seems to me to provide a challenge to the government to give consideration to the Indians. Because of their standard of living, I am sure that they would be satisfied with even a lesser pension than has been provided for the average Canadian citizen. The old Indians on reserves are living in deplorable conditions. They receive just a small pittance. From my experience the top limit is about $5.60 a month, and that must provide them with fuel, clothing and food. Hon. members can understand that even $15 or $20 a month to an Indian would be very acceptable. Therefore, on their behalf I make this special plea, that consideration be given to our first citizens now that we have taken the nationality requirements out of the act. Surely those who were the first citizens of this land, those whom we are seeking to absorb into our society and to build up, should be entitled to consideration.
I have said before, and I repeat that there should be a change in the title of the act. The act should read the "Retirement Pensions Act." We should emphasize constantly the objective, which is to bring about retirement so that the labour field may be left to those who are still able to earn, instead of emphasizing old age pensions.
During my municipal life I served on the old home board in Grey county. Some years ago we changed the name of that institution to the Grey county home. I know there are still places where such institutions are described as poorhouses, houses of refuge or old people's homes, and so on. I think these
Old Age Pensions

things mean a great deal to the old people. In Grey county we have done away with such names as the old people's home, or the house of refuge, and so on. With respect, I say that the old age pension should be considered a retirement pension available at the age set forth in the bill. If that were done it would be greatly appreciated.
I say further, and with this I conclude, that the government could afford to deal more liberally with the blind and with those who are totally incapacitated physically, who are a great charge upon their families and are likely to become a charge upon society. In the initial stage I do not think the pension should be the full amount that would finally be awarded to an elderly person; but it should be an award, a subsistence allowance, and yet still cause the individual to exercise his own initiative and to develop his ability to earn a living for himself. I do not believe that any pension should be of such a size as either to encourage indolence or to discourage ambition and enterprise. Rather is it a reward for services, and therefore we should seek to remove from it anything that would leave the recipients feeling that they are objects of charity.


Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, it is agreed, at least on this side, that the present bill is a sorry answer to the plea of the Canadian people for more humane and effective treatment of their aged. The offer to pay three-quarters of an additional $5 to those provinces which agree to pay up to $30 a month, that is to say, $3.75 per pensioner per month, is clearly not enough to take care even of the increased cost of living and, therefore, it means little.
My main objection is to the means test. The application of that test has a demoralizing effect on the old age pensioner. I have laid a great deal of experience with the aged in my community. I live in a constituency where many old people are unable to qualify for the pension 'because previously they did not have the language qualification that was called for, and now the courts decide that they have not sufficient knowledge of the operations of our democratic way of life. I think the Canadian people would support the abolition of the means test, and I know something of the vicious effect it has on the health of the people.
A few dollars put by for their old age is extremely valuable to them, but the effect of the	means test is to lower their
own self respect because they feel that they are paupers having to accept charity from society. I wish every member could have

seen the change that took place in the old age pensioners in our province when that government instituted free hospitalization, free medical care, free drugs, free dental and free eye treatment for old age pensioners. Let me refer to one man of seventy-five who had been gradually going blind. He had no money to pay doctor's fees to have his eyes cared for and he had become totally blind. A couple of years ago he received a card notifying him that as an old age pensioner he could get free medical treatment. He went to the doctor, who looked at his eyes and decided that an operation would cure that man, and the result is that today he can see. Twenty five dollars is very little for a person over seventy years of age to live on, and when such a person has to go and confess to a doctor that he has no money to pay him he is placed in a mean position and would rather not go. The relief which would be given by the government in taking over the obligation of seeing that these people shall have the medical and dental treatment and drugs which they need but cannot provide for themselves would be a greater step forward than anything I know.
Apparently the government in this bill indicates that it cannot go farther and cannot give $50. It cannot reduce the age limit. It is making some change in regard to the amount which old persons are allowed to have as income, but few people after seventy can earn much income, and if the government cannot carry out the other reforms that have been suggested I would urge that at least they take some steps to provide medical attention, which means so much to people over the age of seventy.


Jean-François Pouliot: Having listened to what has been said by hon. members, I find once more that my hon. colleagues have feelings that honour them, concerning .the old people. The old age pension was instituted about twenty years ago, and since then it has been in operation in different provinces. But before 1926-27 there were old people. There were people were living to just as old an age as people live now and they were looked after by their relatives. As I mentioned yesterday, very few had to take action against their children to obtain the support that was due them, and a discussion like the one which has taken place on old age pensions would have been termed uncalled for and untimely and would have surprised the House of Commons.

Old Age Pensions
But in 1925-26 a definite promise was made by the Liberal party in the famous letter to A. A. Heaps, who is now a civil servant and who was then member for Winnipeg South, that there would be an old age pension scheme after the election of 1926-1925 or 1926-and we had it. Now everybody is considered to have the same need. The reasoning is the same as that of the judge who said that all those who practised petty smuggling should be hanged the same as murderers, and the other judge who said he believed in equal justice to all and that the murderers should be fined like those who indulged in petty smuggling; the same justice for all, the same way of reasoning with regard to all the old people.
I know that what my hon. friend who has just spoken has said is true in this sense, that hospitals have done marvels for the old people; but they did marvels for the old people before the institution of the old age pension. How is it that now the state has to look after these people? It is because private charity cannot afford to look after them. But that was done before taxes were so high. When the taxes were not so heavy it was easy for people with means to give part of their income for the building and maintenance of splendid charitable institutions such as we have in the province of Quebec, but with the increase in taxation they cannot do that now and the state has come, in a socialistic manner, to provide similar help for the old and needy.
It is the great difference between two periods. In the first period, we had private enterprise when those who had more money than was necessary for their personal needs decided to give a large share to the public to help young people to get their education, to help the sick and the aged. Now taxes are so high that it is impossible for anyone to do what was done before, and that is why we have this kind of legislation.
I do not know whether I was correctly interpreted-I was not quite correctly interpreted in the press-when I said yesterday that it was possible to provide better health without spending more money. It is absolutely necessary to decide to do something, but not to pay any pension to those who are not in need of it. This will require courage; it will require determination. I understand that while a by-election in Halifax is going on, it is a bad time to make a decision of that kind. The debate on the old age pension is just an auction to bribe the old people of seventy who are not entitled to a pension in the county of Halifax or anywhere else. It
is a bribe; it is an auction. It is said that we must do this and must do that. There is one thing we must do. We must help those who are in need and who have no other support. Among them are children who have no hands. There are others who suffer from infirmities, from young people to the very old. Is it not absurd to decide that it is only at forty that a man who is blind shall have a pension? If a blind man deserves a pension at forty, he deserves it as soon as he is born. We go on like that. A limit is set at forty. The minister will probably say, "I have been so advised by the officials of my department". When will the ministers stop singing that song? When will they make their own decisions? There are some decisions they have to make with their colleagues. How is it that a bureaucrat advises the minister about this policy? It is the policy of his department. Policies of his department should be submitted by him to the council; then the council will decide, and he will stand by that decision in his seat in the house. He should not ask clerks to give him advice on policy. The clerks in his department are there to execute policies. We are here to make them do so by passing laws according to the needs of the Canadian people. I may be wrong, but that is my position. I am humiliated when any minister says, "I will seek the advice of my officials". We see the minister, a man of intelligence, a man of apparent competence, but a man who cannot walk alone without the crutches of his department.
This is a serious matter. I live among certain people who have been kind to me and whom I want to help. Amongst those who receive pensions I know there are some who do not deserve them, but there are some who deserve them fully. Some who do not deserve them, have them just the same; others who deserve them, who should have had them for a long time have positively nothing. This bill will give them nothing. It is made contributory. What is that contribution? It is rad tape, because we already have government annuities. Why have two contributory systems, one in the Department of National Health and Welfare and the other in the Department of Labour, or the Department of Finance. They exchange departments at some point, and I do not know just where it is. However, there is another contributory system already in existence, and I do not see the necessity of putting a tenth wheel on the coach. Contributory! It is nonsense to suggest contributory old age pensions, because those who need them are unable to pay the contribution. That is just as clear as spring water, just as clear as daylight at noon.
Old Age Pensions

I appreciate the fact that the minister invited me to some parleys to discuss the matter of old age pensions. I thank him very much, but I have not been there because I know that any suggestion made by any member is worth nothing unless it is supported by some minor official of the minister's department. So here we are. I will not say any more because it is useless. Some of my colleagues have suggested that I should bring in an amendment to provide for a differentiation, a sorting of those who really need old age pensions and those who do not. I will make no amendment. I have offered some ideas and some suggestions. But I know very well that any suggestion or any amendment made by any member will be useless. Only the bureaucrats run the business. I am sorry, but I have seen people suffering so greatly, people in need, people who are old, that I think it is time their grievances were laid before parliament. I have letters in my pocket to illustrate what I am saying. There are just a few. I have countless letters of the kind. Here is one from a parish priest which says, "I have in parish Mr. and Mrs. So-and-so who are in need. Both are sick. To keep house the wife should have a maid. She is sick	and	he is	deaf.	He also is	sick.He suffers	from	the heart.	In spite of the
allowances and assistance to needy mothers there will be some cases here and there which will not benefit from it."
That is signed by a parish priest. They do not always want to go to the hospital. They could go there under the public assistance regulations, but they want to stay together in their home. With a little help they could	be looked	after,	they could	paythe doctor	and	have	some	assistance.	But
they are given nothing. They have not reached the age of seventy! It is only at seventy that one becomes old and needy! I have numerous letters like that about people who really deserve consideration, people who were well off at one time but who have lost all they had, and others who have been sick- people who deserve consideration. But the limit has been set at seventy, and it will be seventy. The minister is asking $20,000,000 for the needy children of Europe, and I agree to that. We cannot have $1,000,000 to fix up these cases, but we can have $20,000,000 for other children. It is all right to give $20,000,000 to the needy children of Europe, provided that the needy children are not people with long beards. But if it is done for outside, it must be done at home here. Yesterday everybody applauded when it was done for another country. But when we want some help for the people of this

country we cannot have it. Seventy years! It did not happen a long time ago. It happened yesterday. I am in full sympathy with helping everyone who is in need, but why give the same help to those who are not in need? The earth will continue to turn around. People will attach no importance to it. They will say it is all right. Those who suffer far away are of no importance at all. It we make a distinction between those who need the pension and those who do not, we may displease a few. We might just as well let those who are sick and suffering from infirmities continue to suffer. It is all right. We do not see them. They are poor. They are far away. They will not write us. It is just the same as if they did not belong to our own land. That is the way it goes. One could go anywhere, even here in Ottawa, and see people who are suffering. Some people are on the street selling pencils. Is it not a shame for a man to sit on the sidewalk and sell pencils at the door of the big stores in Montreal or even here in Ottawa? That man should have some comfort in life. He has been deprived of his legs, and sometimes of his arms. He is entitled to some comfort Well, they are there on the street; they are all right. It is all right for them. Those men are entitled to pensions as much as some rich men over seventy.
Let me explain how the payment of pensions, and even an increase in the payment, will not cost any more than the amount now spent for old age pensions. Let me point out how it will not cost any more, even if pensions are increased in needy cases. This can be done if the state will get rid of all the parasites who are exploiting the state, who consider the state to be something like a milch cow. They can be put aside, and that money used to increase pensions for the needy so that, if required, they can have their doctors. They can improve their conditions of life and have a few moments of sunshine before quitting this world to go to a better one. The reduction which can be made will be profitable to others; even the government may save money.
I have one further observation, and I shall have finished. In the hearts of the people there is a deep sense of justice. When they see something unjust happening they say there is something wrong. When assistance to the people has certain limitations they wonder why those who are outside are not brought in to be looked after properly. When the right thing is not being done we often hear severe judgment passed by the people, when they say, "We live in an unjust world."

Old Age Pensions
Why is it an unjust world? Because parasites in the Department of National Health and Welfare, whom I have already denounced, are too lazy to do the necessary work of selection. It is impossible to make them move. 1 have already complained about them. They are parasites who come from all over the world. They are not progressive. They are there just for their jobs, and I denounce them as strongly now as I did when the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) had the health branch under his supervision.
The other day I was passing through Montreal. A man shook hands with me and said, "You were right in complaining." He was referring to a one-language official of the department who had been so hard on the bilinguals when he was connected with the air force. I denounced him in the house, and two or three years after he was so grateful he thanked me for what I had done.
I will say they are not all like that. There are a few laudable exceptions. But at the present time it is impossible to bring the attention of the Department of National Health and Welfare to the realities of life. I want them to help those who are poor; I want them to help those who are needy; and if they have to make a sacrifice of the votes of those few who receive pensions without being entitled to them, let us cut the string and give a chance to the needy ones.


Norman Jaques: Mr. Speaker-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member will realize that in a debate of this kind I should have an opportunity to reply. The hon. member will have an opportunity to speak when, we reach committee. I can merely urge that upon him, but I had understood that was the manner in which the debate would proceed.


Norman Jaques: Would that prevent my speaking?


Paul Joseph James Martin: If I speak now I shall close the debate; but I thought my hon. friend was prepared to speak when we reach the committee stage of the bill.


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member has not clearly understood what was said. If the hon. member takes his seat he will be tendering a favour to the minister. But he has a right to speak now.


Norman Jaques: I do not wish to take up too much time, and I do not think I will prevent the minister from speaking before six o'clock. In all the years I have been in the house I have always spoken with respect to old age pensions, and I feel
I should like to say something at this time.
I shall be brief, and I have no intention of being technical.
I have listened as usual, to the speeches of hon. members who have preceded me. It seems to me that many of them have occupied themselves with the methods of paying the pension when, as members, we should be concerned only with the policy, and consideration of the question as to whether Canada should pay a better pension to her old people or should be content to continue to pay the pittance the old people are now receiving.
Owing to the increased cost of living, the present pension is not as good as it was before the war, despite the slight increase proposed in the bill. It has been said in the house times without number, and not only by private members but by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King.) himself, that anything physically possible and desirable can be made financially possible. So that what we should concern ouselves with is whether or not we are justified in. increasing the pension to our old people; we should leave methods to experts.
What do the old people need. Merely food, clothing and shelter. So that all we have to ask ourselves is this: Can Canada provide the necessary food, clothing and shelter for the old people? If not, then I suggest that we should have an inquiry into the reason why we cannot, and we should leave off talking about the immense riches of our country.
I do not think any hon. member would doubt for a moment that the productive power of Canada is ample to provide food, clothing and shelter for our old people. Who is to pay for this pension? Obviously, as the then Minister of Finance, the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley), said during the first days of the war, when the question was asked how the war was to be paid for: "The cost of the war must come out of the current production." And so with old age pensions, the cost must come out of current production. Luckily for our old people, Canada produces more food, clothing and shelter than is needed; we have, a surplus; we are on an exporting basis. Therefore there is no reason why the raising of the standard of living, because that is what it means, of our old people should entail a lowering of the standard of living of the rest of the people. It is true that during a war, when the bulk of the population is engaged in the war effort, either in the armed forces or in making munitions, a reduction in living standards would be reflected by old age pensions. One of the reasons why we in this group did not press the matter too strongly during the war was that we realized that the
Old Age Pensions

war entailed a lowering of the standards of living for everybody. But that time is in the past, and we shall soon be faced with the necessity of finding markets for what we can and do produce. I say with the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) that the needs of our people should come before the needs of any other people in any other country. When our own needs are satisfied, it will be the time to consider the people in other countries.
There is the question of whether these pensions should be contributory or noncontributory. I have always advocated noncontributory pensions, because I can see that a contributory scheme would provide tremendous control over the workers of this country who would be paying into a fund for the greater part of their lives. They could be made to toe the line by a threat of loss of pension rights, and for that reason, among others, I have always opposed a contributory pension scheme.
Some people think that if everyone were thrifty and saved his money there would be no need of old age pensions; they seem to think that those who are not thrifty should be penalized by having to forgo pensions. It seems to me that an old age pension is not given as a reward for thrift; it is paid or should be paid as a right to any human being who arrives at the age or at the state of health which prevents or handicaps him from earning a full living for himself.
What is the opinion of the people of Canada as a whole with regard to this matter? Have they registered their desires in connection with it? From the letters I have received, not only from people in my own riding, but from people all over Canada, there is no doubt in my mind that the vast majority of Canadians favour a larger pension paid at an earlier age. I cannot see why the members of this house should not feel free to reflect the opinions of the majority of the Canadian people. If those people demand a larger old age pension, then it is up to the members of parliament to meet their wishes.
If a vote against this bill did not involve a vote of non-confidence or a vote of censure; if every hon. member voted exactly the way he felt, I have no doubt that there would be an overwhelming vote for larger pensions to be paid at an earlier age. I have let it be known that I intend to vote against the bill.
I have been told by some that people will say I voted against increasing the pension by $5. But, I can imagine the minister who has charge of this bill saying to the cabinet, "I do not believe that the members will agree to such a miserable addition to the pension; 
I think there will be a lot of opposition to it," and I can imagine some other member of the cabinet saying, "They may talk about it but they dare not vote against it; they will be frightened to vote against it because of what their constituents might say."
When I vote against this bill I am not voting against the Liberal government. I am not trying, nor do I hope to defeat the present government. My sole purpose in voting against this bill is to register my protest in the only way I can, to make clear what I think of the miserable pension that is to be paid to our old people. For those reasons and those reasons only I shall be . forced to vote against the bill.


Mr. A. L. SMITH (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I shall not detain the house for more than five minutes. I have not spoken for some time either on this bill or on the amendment or anything else. I want to point out two things, without, I hope, threshing old straw. In the old age pension aspect of the question I agree largely with the first speech made by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). It seems to me that what we are all seeking to do here is to provide help for the needy; and, having listened to this debate, I am convinced that we are not going at that in the proper way. We are piecemealing things rather than having some integrated scheme in Canada to look after our needy people, the needy by age, illness, blindness and in any other way.
It has been stated by some in this house that the dominion government are doing so-and-so and the provinces have the opportunity of making their own additions. That may be true, Mr. Speaker, in two provinces. It is untrue in seven, because seven provinces are on the dole from this dominion government, exactly as it is suggested that the old age pensioner will be on the dole. In other words, those seven provinces have a confined budget, outside of which they cannot expand. That is all I am saying about that.
I wish to say one word with respect to our blind people. I hope the minister when he replies will give some reason why pensions for our blind should not begin until forty years of age. I was very much impressed' by the argument of the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Rinfret), that a reduction of the pensionable age for the blind from forty to twenty or twenty-one could involve only a very small expenditure. My memory is that it was very small, comparably, in any event. Again I say that when a person has reached that point where he is not a natural charge on his parents as most of us are through our school years-I am not admitting that I

Old Age Pensions
was in that class because I went through school and I earned plenty of money in the holidays in years gone by-I can see no reason and none has so far been advanced by anyone why the pension for the blind should not begin at least when that person becomes of age. I trust that the minister in the kindness of his heart will probably change his mind and agree with that suggestion which seems to meet with general approval from all members of this house. I am one minute short of my five, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. L. W. SKEY (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, may I say a word in support of what the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) has just said with respect to pensions for the blind. I believe that the Department of National Health and Welfare will find the experience of D.V.A. in these things of great use to them. I advocate, not only that pensions for the blind should begin at the age of twenty-one, but that the department spend more money and in some cases perhaps quite a bit more on placing blind people in a position where they can support themselves. I am sure they will find that every dollar spent on rehabilitation in that way will pay for itself ten times over.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, a debate such as this one places on the minister in charge of the bill the responsibility of replying; and, because of the variety of opinions which have been expressed, I think the reply should be not needlessly long, but, in the light of what has been said, detailed enough to put forward the other point of view.
I have listened to those who have urged that the bill was a wholly inadequate one, and in my description of their characterization of the bill from that point of view I am being extremely generous. Some hon. members have referred to the government and to my person as indulging in a form of cruelty that should not be countenanced by this house. I think we have just had from the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) the kind of approach that one should use in dealing with this problem. No one in this house, no matter where he sits, has in his heart anything but a desire, I am sure, in the light of his responsibilities, to do the right thing for the particular class of people who are covered by this amending bill.


Mr. GILLIS:: May I ask the hon. minister a question now?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did want to finish my remarks.


James Horace King: The hon. member knows that when another member has the floor he must not ask questions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall be glad to answer questions in committee. I prefer not to have any questions now.


Clarence Gillis: I think I am one of the members-


James Horace King: Order. I would ask the hon. member to resume his seat.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In committee I shall be only too glad to answer questions.


Clarence Gillis: It would not be relevant in committee.


James Horace King: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What I suggest to the house is that we realize that what we are debating is a specific and concrete suggestion in the form of a bill. A good bit of the discussion we have heard, some of it emotional-and I am not complaining of that-has had no real relevancy to the actual provisions of the bill as outlined in my initial statement. Some have referred to this measure as a peanut, and so on. Let us see whether that suggestion has any relevancy to the bill.
The financial commitment involved in this bill representing the sum of $20,000,000 is as much as all the provinces combined are now paying in old age pensions. When hon. members say that this bill does not represent a progressive step, when they deny the language of the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), I do not think they have addressed themselves-and I say this with great respect- to the implications and the clauses of the bill.
Is it out of the question to suggest that another indication of the importance of this measure is the number of new pensioners who will go on pension as a result of this bill? There are 217,000 people of the age of seventy and over who are now receiving old age pensions in Canada. Of those 217,000, some
7,000	are blind persons. There are 539,000 old aged persons in Canada, seventy and over. By this bill, which, on the admission in the opening statement of the government, was said to be not a permanent measure but an interim measure, 60,000 people who have not under the existing law been able to receive one cent by way of old age pension will come under its provisions. To the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Jaques), who said that he would vote against this bill, I say that is for him to say, but in voting against this bill he is voting against 60,000 people getting pension for the first time.
Old Age Pensions

I am sure that some hon. members have overlooked the fact-they can dismiss it, but dismissing it does not deal with the issue- that, under this bill, the provisions as to outside income which the pensioner may have and yet get his pension place us ahead of New Zealand, ahead of Australia, ahead of Great Britain.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Years later.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And hon. gentlemen say
that it is not an important measure when it does that very thing. This bill does not remove the means test, but it will give a more generous means test than can be found in any other country in the world. When hon. gentlemen-


Mr. JACKMAN:: 


Paul Joseph James Martin: When hon. gentlemen
speak of this in the way that they have done I suggest that they could not have read the bill carefully. It may be that some did not want to read it carefully. Every country in the world has a means test. Hon. gentlemen speak about the means test as though Canada were the only country in the world that had such an imposition. New Zealand has a means test; Great Britain has a means test-


An hon. MEMBER:: No, it has not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The United States has a
means test; Australia has a means test. I say that our means test system, as a result of this bill, is more liberal than that of the other countries I have cited.
I do not want to take up too much time.
I hope I can finish by six o'clock; I must. But I do want to say this to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken). He occupies in this house a position which perhaps in the eyes of the public, and properly so, and of parliament is greater than that of any other hon. member sitting opposite. On that account the words that he uses have a special significance and deserve special attention. With his permission I propose to pay special attention for a few moments to what he said in this house when he replied to me.
I did not think the hon. gentleman really would be guilty of saying what he actually said in the debate, in the face of what I, as a minister of the crown, had just said. His words have gone across the country, and I must take this and other means to reply to them.


John Bracken: What the minister says will be repliedi to also.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I sincerely hope so. What I want to point out to the hon. gentleman is

this. In the shadow of his remarks was the implication that if he had the opportunity he would do something that this administration has not had the courage to do. Let us look at the facts of the case. The first proposal for old age pensions by any administration came from the government headed by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in 1926. That bill was defeated in another place by gentlemen of the same political tinge as my hon. friend. That bill was opposed in this house by the then leader of the Conservative party, the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, in the most denunciatory terms which I think I have ever read in Hansard, and which are available if my hon. friend wishes to make a similar retort.
Then the hon. gentleman went on to say what he would do and what they would do, free from responsibility, enjoying the luxury of opposition, forgetting that in 1930 there was in this country a Conservative government under the leadership of the present Lord Bennett, at a time when this country was suffering economic deprivations the like of which it had never suffered before. Between 1930 and. 1935 was the time, the special time, when, the old age pensioners had the right, if they ever had the right at any time, to go to a government and ask for relief. But did the government of that day, headed by my hon. friend who is now the leader of the opposition, do anything at that time to improve the status of the old age pensioners? No. At that time my hon. friend was the premier of a province, and let us see what he did when he was the premier of that province.


An hon. MEMBER:: And a Liberal.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In 1927 the bill became law. My hon. friend waited for a year-


Clarence Gillis: He was a Liberal at that time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: 
John Bracken: Will the minister give us the date on which that supplement was paid?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was passed on March 17, 1943, and made retroactive to January 1, but it was passed when my hon. friend was no longer a member of the government, but when his ambitions were lying in other channels.
So that the record can be clear, my hon. friend made a speech in this city about eleven weeks ago, speaking at the Chateau Laurier at a banquet of the Progressive Conservative association. I shall now quote from the Ottawa Journal of Saturday, March 29. I should like to place it on record in the light of what my hon. friend said when he replied to my statement, and I ask anj' hon. member to put this statement against w'hat he said they would do, and to judge as to the likelihood of my hon, friend dealing in a responsible way with this matter. He said:
When the cost of paternalism reaches the stage that it lessens production and services, what we then have is not an increase in social security, but a decrease in the material prosperity of all.
Up to now the government has been taxing us five times as high as before the war. Even after it makes its promised reduction, the tax load will be four times as high as before the war. On the basis of its own figures, the government ought to bring in a reduction of 33 per cent all round. Before the war, taxation and other revenues amounted to some $500 million. Owing to the government's extravagance and heavy commitments, it will probably exact $2 billion from the Canadian taxpayer this year.
You cannot ask for a reduction of taxation in one breath and make proposals that will involve commitments in another. It is all very well for an hon. member who has not the responsibility of the leader of the opposition to do that, but the proposals that he made would call upon the administration of this country to expend not less than $340 million. I take second place to no man in this house in my desire to do something for those who can benefit from social security, and my whole life shows it; but I am not going to make political promises when I know full well that these promises, in the light of all other contingent obligations, cannot be realized at the present time.
I could go on and show that it was the same hon. gentleman who expressed certain views about family allowances, but more of that on another occasion. What my hon. friend can do is seriously to consider what I said about the government's over-all security proposals made to the provinces in August,
1945. If he does not accept my assurances I call to witness tke words of the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Usley) when he was Minister of Finance last July, when he said that once we had a fiscal understanding with the provinces, the. government's social security programme represented an essential part of the government's objectives.
I call to witness the statement of the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) twice this year, once in Toronto and once in this house.
I call attention to my own statements as a responsible minister of the crown. But if that does not satisfy the hon. gentleman, let me remind him of the words of the Prime Minister in a telegram sent to the premier of Saskatchewan on July 15, 1946, and reiterated three times since in subsequent communications. This is what the Prime Minister of Canada said:
As emphasized in the budget address, the public investment and social security proposals submitted last August remain an essential part of the dominion government's programme. As soon as there is sufficient acceptance of the proposed tax agreements we shall be ready to explore, in a general conference, or otherwise, the possibilities of working out mutually satisfactory arrangements in regard to the whole or any part of our earlier public investment and social security proposals.


John Bracken: Another excuse for delay.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend repeats parrot-like the same observation, but there is the statement of the head of the government.


Gordon Graydon: You are being a parrot yourself, are you not?


Paul Joseph James Martin: If my hon. friend can exercise the same energy which he has shown in this debate in addressing himself to the premiers of the two provinces still standing out, I think he will contribute more to the solution of this problem.


John Bracken: Only an excuse for delay. [DOT]


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will go farther. The attitude I am taking in this debate today is the attitude which my hon. friend took, speaking on this very floor, in this very building, at the opening of the Rowell-Sirois conference. Let me repeat our view with regard to this matter. On the social security side, the proposals prepare the way for a system of national old age pensions payable at seventy years, with no means test and entirely financed by the federal government. A further programme was proposed of old age assistance at sixty-five to sixty-nine, financed jointly by the provinces and the dominion. That is a responsible undertaking. It is a colossal undertaking
Old Age Pensions

if hon. gentlemen will realize the cost involved-that together with health insurance. I want to see these things done, but I do not want to see the people told that they can be done unless we have the necessary arrangement with those other agencies of government without which we cannot do these things. The hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson) made a suggestion as to what they thought should be done. Of course, the proposed resolution of theirs would be out of order, but I want them to know that the objectives they have in mind are objectives that this government is anxious, in the light of its commitments, in the light of its arrangements with the provinces, to try to bring about.
Let it not be forgotten that this measure, unimportant as some hon. gentlemen have said it was, will, when it becomes law, represent on the part of this government, and on the part of the provinces, an expenditure of $100,000,000 on old age pensions. I want to see more than old age pensions-the sort of thing the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) talked about, the sort of thing my colleague the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown) talked about, the sort of thing the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) talked about. Those are things I should like to see done, but those are measures which we shall never bring about if we put every egg we have in one basket. That surely is clear. Those who, like the hon. gentlemen of the Cooperative Commonwealth. Federation, have been advocating $50 a month- which would cost $560 million in 1948, $611 million in 1951, $769 million in 1961 and $914 million in 1971- when they realize what they have really advocated, must, on reflection, conclude that you cannot have a broad system of social security if you enter into such colossal commitments on any one item, without regard to the entire pattern. And are those commitments much more outlandish than the proposal of $60 a month by hon. gentlemen in the rear, which would cost in the years mentioned, $672 million, $733 million, $923 million and $1,097 million?
I want to see health insurance, and I will do all I can to bring it about, but it will not be brought about by an unbalanced programme that does not bear a relation to the whole scheme one has in mind.
I have been charged with criticism because I was shouldering on the provinces a responsibility which they should not be asked to bear. The house will remember that the day after this bill was introduced the province of
[Mr Martin.]
Ontario announced its increase of $40. As a result of this measure, as envisaged in the speech from the throne, five provinces have now increased their supplements, with the result that now, in consequence of this bill, we shall have a basic pension, not of $30, but in six provinces a basic pension above that amount-$38.75 in British Columbia, $33.75 in Alberta, $33.75 in Saskatchewan and $40 in Ontario-


Gordon Graydon: Good old Ontario.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -I want to say that that is all as a result of the government's declared intention to introduce this bill.


Gordon Graydon: Thank George Drew for it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This government is spending now $48 million on old age pensions as opposed to $17 million spent by the provinces, apart from supplements. As a result of this bill, we shall be spending $68 million as compared with the present expenditure of $17 million by the provinces apart from supplements. In the light of that; in the light of a responsibility which constitutionally does not belong here solely, if at all, is it unfair to suggest, as I have suggested, that the provinces should bear a greater share than they have done to date? And to my hon. friends of the C.C.F. I would say that if they really believe what they say, they have the same opportunity of doing what I think my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) did and what the member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) did. They called up George Drew on the telephone and said, "You had better increase your pension as a result of Martin's bill."


Mr. COLDWELL:: In the richest province of Canada.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: Dirty politics.


John Bracken: The minister made a deliberate misstatement, and I ask him to withdraw it. There was no telephone conversation between me and George Drew on this or anything relating to it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman tells me he did not telephone George Drew. Therefore I take it there is no telephonic relationship.


Mr. STIRLING:: That is typical, absolutely typical.


John Bracken: I ask the minister to withdraw that statement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I withdraw the observation that the hon. gentleman telephoned George Drew.

Old Age Pensions


Grote Stirling: It is typical.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I say, and I say it sincerely-


William Earl Rowe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


William Earl Rowe: On a point of order, I would ask the minister, in the absence of the hon. member for Eglinton, to withdraw his reference to that hon. gentleman, because the minister deliberately said that both hon. gentlemen telephoned George Drew.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Quite right. The Ron. gentleman not being here, I will say he was not in telephone conversation with George Drew. What I am concerned about is that, my hon. friends opposite having placed the responsibility on us-


Mr. KNOWLES:: Where it belongs.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -they should not hesitate to accept some responsibility themselves. I admired the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) the other day when he said that the C.C.F. in opposition is not like the C.C.F. in a government.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I did not say that.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: He did not say that; nothing of the kind.


Angus MacInnis: I did not say anything of the kind that the minister says I said. I do not think the minister should object to interruptions because he has continually interrupted every speaker in this debate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker. In the drafting of this measure, I have not relied only on my own judgment or that of my department. I ask my hon. friends of the C.C.F. to read what Doctor H. M. Cassidy, whose judgment in these things is placed as the highest in this country, has to say. If they will read his book entitled "Public Health and Welfare Organization" they will see these w'ords:
The key to success will be agreement that there must be a partnership between the three levels of government in operating the system. Only as this partnership is worked out on equitable terms, only as it operates with understanding and tolerance among the partners and only as they feel that each is pulling his full share is the system likely to be successful.
This government is spending almost $700,-000,000-and I am saying this with all the sincerity I have-on various forms of social security, health and welfare. That is a great sum of money. In the light of what the provinces have in the way of responsibility, when they are spending a total of only
$17,000,000 on old age pensions, and when that represents in some provinces but a couple of millions, as compared with our assumption of hundreds of millions-


Angus MacInnis: As compared with what you have to spend on it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -I do not think it is an unfair suggestion.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask the minister a question?


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


James Horace King: Order.


Major James William Coldwell: I allowed the minister to ask me a number of questions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Go ahead.


Major James William Coldwell: The question I wanted to ask is this. If the minister believes what he now says and if this government believes that, why did the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) demand on June 2, 1931, of the government then in power, that the federal authority should bear the entire cost of old age pensions?


Paul Joseph James Martin: If my hon. friend wants the partially discarded opinions of somebody else, he is welcome to them.


Gordon Graydon: That is your own Prime Minister.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said if my friend wants the discarded opinion.


James Horace King: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let us be honest about this. We alone cannot bring about social security in this country. No central government alone can. But if on the municipal level and on this level we cooperate together, we can bring about what this government had tried to do, namely, social and economic security for the people of Canada, the most fortunate among the nations of the world.


Clarence Gillis: I am not going to debate the question, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to ask the minister a question in order to complete the record.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


James Horace King: Order.


Clarence Gillis: He mentioned figures.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: The Speaker is on his feet.


James Horace King: I would ask the hon. member to resume his seat.

Supply-Secretary oj State


Clarence Gillis: I cannot ask the minister a question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You can in committee.


Clarence Gillis: And you call this a free parliament; you call it democracy!


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Gordon Graydon: We had better change the title of the bill to "The Political Old Age Pensions Act".


Arza Clair Casselman: That is what it is. The minister asks for courtesy and gives none. Progress reported.



PRIVILEGE


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise to a question of privilege for the purpose of making an explanation with reference to the Hansard report of yesterday's debate on the united nations matter. It escaped me at two o'clock, and I might perhaps be allowed to do it now. At page 4572 the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) is reported to have said, "What about the British commonwealth?" Then my remarks follow:
I will not argue with my hon. friend because his views and mine on this matter do not meet.
I wanted to make this explanation, Mr. Speaker. In the noise which hon. members will recall accompanied part of the debate, I did not hear clearly the interruption made by the hon. member for Lethbridge. I wanted to indicate to the house that my reference was not to his views with respect to the British commonwealth but to his views with respect to some aspects of the united nations organization.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at seven o'clock. SUPPLY
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Golding in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF THE SECRETART OF STATE 366. Departmental administration, $126,198.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Chairman, before the item carries, I should like to discuss a matter of general interest, and what I shall have to

say is not directed particularly to the department now before the committee. However I feel that this item for departmental administration affords me an opportunity of saying what I have in mind.
In recent years parliamentary sessions have been extending far beyond the traditional spaces of time they occupied in former years. While I shall not take time to consult the records, anyone who looks into them will find that in earlier days sessions of parliament were nearly always completed before the end of the period of spring, and that it was seldom they ran into the time of year which, in recent years, has become our custom.
This fact may have had some bearing on the time at which departmental reports have been compiled. What actually happens is that in departmental reports matters which were of interest more than two years before are discussed. For instance, a matter in a departmental report which appears under the date of April, 1945, is now being dealt with in June, 1947. That is a condition which is common in reports coming before the house at this time.
The last report for the Department of the Secretary of State-and I do not criticize this department particularly, because it is common to all-is for the year ended March 31, 1946, and contains information relative to that department as far back as April, 1945. What I am about to say is not said by way of criticism, but rather in an effort to be constructive. My thought is that if we are to overhaul our method of procedure, we ought also to overhaul our system of presenting departmental reports. If we are to continue to sit into July-and apparently we are, from time to time-I believe some change must be made in this regard. The fact that we do sit into the summer months is a fact for which possibly all in the house must accept a share of responsibility.
On the other hand, I believe that we ought not to be asked to deal with something in a departmental report which might be classed as ancient history. I am wondering whether a report of a department such as this one could not be brought down as a report of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1947, rather than 1946.
Immediately the minister's answer, and that of his officials, will be that it is impossible to get the information in time. I fancy, however, that is a specious explanation, because in times of war and peace we have done much more difficult things than compiling reports and having them in shape for presentation at a session of parliament. My suggestion is that departmental reporting should be brought up to date, so that we may not be asked to

Supply-Secretary of State
deal with matters in a report which, on occasions, have developed more than two years earlier. Those events have become ancient history and do not serve as a useful guide as to the activities of the department in question.
I am discussing the matter in a general way because I believe it is something worthy of investigation, with a view to improvement.


Mr. HAZEN:: I am interested in what has been said by the hon. member for Peel. This afternoon when I learned that the estimates for the Department of the Secretary of State were to be placed before the committee I went to the distribution branch in this building and asked for a copy of the report of the Department of the Secretary of State. Upon being given the report, I took it to my office and commenced looking into it. Upon looking at the front page, I found that the report I had been given was for the year ended March 31, 1946. I went back to the distribution office and asked Mr. Gray if he could let me have a copy of the report of the Department of the Secretary of State for March 31, 1947. He told me it had not yet come out. In looking through the report for 1946, I noticed a heading, "Naturalization branch", and I suppose in the report for 1947 that heading would be changed to "Citizenship branch". There would be a lot of information under that heading dealing with the period up to March 31, 1947, which is not in the report that was handed to me.


Gordon Graydon: Perhaps someone in the government should make some comment on this matter.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I must say that I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. member for Peel. I have always thought that reports were not presented soon enough for the convenience of members of parliament. I realize that there are difficulties-and these are known to my colleague-with regard to revision and supervision by the auditor general. I believe there should be more expedition in submitting all these reports to parliament.


Douglas King Hazen: What steps are being taken to provide adequate accommodation for the patent office? During the consideration of the bill to amend the Patent Act by the banking and commerce committee, evidence was given which satisfied me, and I think it satisfied all members of the committee, that the patent office required more space if it were to carry on its work in a satisfactory manner. Mr. J.	T. Mitchell, commissioner of patents, stated that there were only 12,000 square feet of space, while he had asked for 70,000 square
feet. It certainly was apparent from the evidence given before the committee that more room is required for this work.
Not only is more space required, but additional staff are also required. If there were a staff of fifty patent examiners and 110 to 120 clerks we would be able to handle these patent applications much more satisfactorily. I realize that there is difficulty in getting more staff and in training these men, and there is the question of adequate salaries and the losses incurred by men leaving their positions and taking positions with private firms. The housing situation is another problem. There may be men, who would like to take positions, but when they look into the housing situation they decide not to go any further with their applications. What steps are being taken to obtain adequate staff?
It may come as a surprise or perhaps even as a shock to hon. members to know that, because of insufficiency of office space and inadequacy of staff in the patent office, the average length of time between the filing of an application for a patent and the date when the examination is commenced is eighteen months. Evidence was given before the committee that in the case of 121 patents which had been issued on February 25 last, a period of three years had elapsed between the filing of the application and the granting of the patent.
Something should be done about enlarging the space in order that the work may be satisfactorily carried on, and the staff should be increased. I know that the receipts by the patent office are greatly in excess of the expenditures. Apparently this is one department of government which carries itself. I have not the figures here, but I think I am safe in saying that the surplus of receipts over expenditures averages over $200,000 a year.


Colin William George Gibson: I am glad to be able to assure my hon. friend that this matter is being looked into. One of the first things I found in my department was that the staff of the patent office was totally inadequate and that the office itself was in most undesirable surroundings. The Department of National Defence is moving out of the Woods building and the annex, now known as the Canada building, and the patent office is to be moved there. Some floors are already available, and I have taken steps to have some of the branches of the patent office, now in outlying buildings, moved to the Canada building. I am hoping that in a short time we shall be able to have the whole patent office installed in that building.
Supply-Secretary of Stale


John Horne Blackmore: Does the minister
expect to have any difficulty in obtaining personnel for the department?


Colin William George Gibson: I suppose this matter should be taken up under the item dealing with the patent office, but I can say that there has been difficulty in securing staff. Just the other day we told two applicants that we had positions for them, but in the meantime they had secured other employment. When we are in the enlarged quarters to which we intend to move it will be possible to fill positions without having applicants wait and possibly secure other positions in the meantime. In that way we shall be more likely to secure the necessary staff to undertake the work.


George Randolph Pearkes: I do not know of any
other item under which I could ask this question. On May 5 a return was tabled in answer to a question I had asked with regard to the number of foreign awards which had been granted to the Canadian armed forces. The return showed that 1,475 foreign awards had been granted to personnel of the Canadian army.


Colin William George Gibson: I must
object to this matter being brought up under my estimates. While returns are tabled by the Secretary of State, the information contained therein is not prepared by him. The information can be secured from the Minister of National Defence.


George Randolph Pearkes: Is the deputy of the
Secretary of State not the chairman of the committee on honours and awards, and therefore is this question not proper?


Colin William George Gibson: Those
are civilian honours and awards, and have nothing to do with military awards at all.


Mr. McLURE:: I asked this question last
year but did not get an explanation. Looking over the details of the estimates, I find an item of $35,400 for temporary assistance under item 366, and on the same page another item of $24,000 for temporary assistance. The total amount for temporary assistance in this department is from $430,000 to $440,000, and no explanation has ever been given why these amounts for temporary assistance are carried through all the estimates.


Colin William George Gibson: In the
department we have permanent civil servants and others who are acting in a temporary capacity. The department has not a very high percentage of permanent employees. The civil service commission is conducting examinations of those who came out of the armed forces, and these temporary employees will
rWr. C. W. G. Gibson.]
by degrees decrease in number. There are a certain number of temporary employees in every department who have not been given permanent status.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Temporary assistance in
all the departments accounts for a total of $121,000,000, and yet no report is given to the house as to just where the money goes.


Mr. BLAIR:: Has the government given
consideration to the establishment of a national library for Canada? I do not know whether this comes under the minister's department; I am not sure what department it would come under, but there seems to be a general demand for a national library for Canada.


Colin William George Gibson: That
question is, I think, properly asked here. We have no national library, but I have received a great many representations from organizations from one end of Canada to the other as to the desirability of organizing a national library for Canada, The brief submitted was, I thought, very reasonable. They did not suggest that we should spend one or two million dollars at the outset in putting up a building, but that a committee be appointed, consisting of one librarian and a small staff, who would find out and catalogue from the libraries of this country what books are available to assist students, and from that gradually work up to a national library and a building which would probably be situated in Ottawa. At the present time all Canadian publications are filed with the library of parliament, and that is not altogether a suitable place. I am having the matter considered at the present time, and I think a committee of the library of parliament is also giving the matter consideration to find out the best step to take first.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
367.	Citizenship registration branch, $74,775.
Mr. FRASER:: How many citizenship certificates have been issued to date; how many for $1, and how many for $5?


Colin William George Gibson: We had certificates issued under the previous act. On the first of January the number of naturalization certificates issued was 3,178; certificates in proof of citizenship, 2,816; certificates granted to aliens and sent to the courts, 4,085; certificates issued in the French language, 250; making a total of 10,329. Those are the cases that have actually been investigated and dealt with. When an application for citizenship is received the certificate does

Supply-Secretary of State
not issue automatically; there has to be some investigation. It will be noted from the above figures that 2.816 certificates of proof of citizenship have actually been issued. The applications number 5.493, which leaves approximately 2,600 applications pending.


Gordon Graydon: Would these be natural-born Canadians?


Colin William George Gibson: Yes. Certificates in proof are issued to those who are already Canadian citizens.


Gordon Graydon: Apparently nobody is bothering very much about it.


Mr. McMASTER:: I have had complaints as to the length of time it takes, not only after the application has been put in, but to get the application form sent to the applicant. Could something not be done to shorten the time? It may be just a matter of routine.


Colin William George Gibson: There was delay earlier in the year because we had to change the type of form. The amount charged for the certificate was reduced and various amendments were made to make the form more convenient to the applicant. This meant that the forms had to be changed, and there was some delay on that account. We now endeavour to keep all the clerks of the courts supplied with application forms so that they can supply them to any applicants in their own locality.


Mr. McIVOR:: All too often we forget the officials who do the hard toil in our departments. I want to pay my tribute to the under-secretary for naturalization, both the present gentleman and his predecessor. Their efficiency is marked and their courtesy could not be beat even by a cabinet minister. I am happy to pay my tribute to them.


Douglas King Hazen: Under item 367 we are asked to vote $74,775 for the citizenship registration branch; and a few items below, in item 373, we are asked to vote $79,300 for the citizenship branch. What are the functions of the citizenship registration branch and what are the functions of the citizenship branch? Do these branches overlap? If so, is consideration being given to bringing them together?


Colin William George Gibson: The
citizenship registration branch is the old naturalization branch. We changed the name to correspond with the Citizenship Act. It carries on the same functions it performed before, that of issung certificates to citizens. The citizenship branch mentioned in item 373 is the department that looks after education
and training for citizenship. It is working in conjunction with the provinces to bring the new arrivals of this country up to a common standard of education that will be satisfactory to the judges before whom they appear to become citizens.


William Alexander McMaster: Which is the branch that issues a certificate to a man or a woman who is already a Canadian citizen?


Colin William George Gibson: The
citizenship registration branch.


Gordon Graydon: In what position is the application for citizenship of Igor Gouzenko?
I take it that his letters of denization which make him a British subject have been given. I understand that the next step is to make application to become a Canadian citizen. Because of the public interest in the matter, and because it was discussed in the house before, can the minister indicate whether or not application has actually been made?


Colin William George Gibson: His application could not be considered until he had been a resident of this country for five years. Until that period has elapsed we cannot deal with any application.


Gordon Graydon: In other words, although letters of denization creating him a British subject have been made by statute, there is apparently no short-cut being made to make him a Canadian citizen.


Colin William George Gibson: No. The regulations for citizenship are set out by statute, and we have no powers of shortening the periods that are provided by statute.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I mentioned the $5 and the $1 certificates. Can the minister tell us whether any refund has been made to those who paid $5?


Colin William George Gibson: I can get my hon. friend that information. The amount is being refunded to those who originally paid $5 when they apply.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Do they have to apply for it?


Colin William George Gibson: I am not even sure of that.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It should not be necessary.


Colin William George Gibson: It should not be necessary, no; I can check into that.


Gordon Graydon: I suggest to the minister that he should not follow the example of the Postmaster General who permits the money to lie there until somebody applies for it.
Supply-Secretary oj State


John Horne Blackmore: There is a good deal of uncertainty in some parts of the country regarding the necessity of having a citizenship certificate. Suppose a person were born in Canada or had been naturalized for a long time; would there be any difficulty in his obtaining the privilege of voting if he did not happen to have his citizenship paper? Does he have that right because of the standing he had before this citizenship paper business came into effect?


Colin William George Gibson: There is no need for any Canadian citizen to have a certificate to prove his citizenship. He is entitled to secure such a certificate if he requires it. If he has been naturalized or was born in Canada, under the provisions of the Citizenship Act he is a Canadian citizen and requires no certificate, but he is entitled to have one if he wishes to secure it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
368.	Companies branch, $56,958.
Mr. TIMMINS:: I understand that the companies branch is the branch which really operates at a profit. Can the minister tell us what profit was made in that branch in 1946?


Colin William George Gibson: In 1946-47 the profit of the companies branch was $313,037; the expenditure was $54,406.


Douglas King Hazen: How many companies were incorporated last year? What was the total amount of their capital stock? How many companies were issued supplementary letters patent?


Colin William George Gibson: I have not that information with me, but I shall be glad to get it.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Has the minister given any consideration to a revision of the Companies Act as took place in the United Kingdom recently?


Colin William George Gibson: Consideration is being given to amendments to the Companies Act. Prior to the war, a committee was set up with representatives of the various provinces, and we have had discussions with some of the provinces lately, with the suggestion that that committee be reconvened and consideration given to amendments to the Companies Act which would bring the provincial and dominion acts more into conformity.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Has the minister had many requests for revision of the Companies Act to bring it more up to date, or is it working entirely satisfactorily, or has he received any complaints?
[Mr. Graydon.l


Colin William George Gibson: I have no complaints about it at all, but I think there has been a feeling that we should try to have the dominion and the provincial acts as much in uniformity as possible.


Douglas King Hazen: How many companies surrendered their charter last year?


Colin William George Gibson: I shall get that information.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: I suppose there is a chief solicitor in charge of the companies branch. Is he the same person as the assistant undersecretary of state and advisory counsel. I do not see any solicitors except the junior departmental solicitor in this branch.


Colin William George Gibson: The assistant under-secretary of state is the chief of the companies branch, and he is the chief solicitor.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: The assistant undersecretary of state and the advisory counsel.


Colin William George Gibson: That is Mr. O'Meara.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: Is he the person in charge of the companies branch?


Colin William George Gibson: Yes, that is the same one.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
369.	Trade marks branch, $42,463.
George Randolph Pearkes: Does this branch exercise any control over the design of trade marks similar to the control which, I believe, is exercised by the college of heralds in England?


Colin William George Gibson: It exercises control over the design that is registered, but I do not think it corresponds with the college of heralds in England. The college of heralds has a function quite different from any commercial function.


George Randolph Pearkes: Does the college of heralds not have to pass on the design of all trade marks in Great Britain? Does the minister's branch exercise control over a trade mark which is submitted? Does it check on the various insignia which might be inscribed or included in the trade mark?


Colin William George Gibson: I do not know the full duties of the college of heralds in England, but, of course, there is a tax on the use of heraldic designs in Great Britain which does not exist in this country. If anybody wants to use a trade mark or a design without registering it he is perfectly at liberty to do so, so long as he is not

Supply-Secretary of State
infringing on one already registered. If persons wish to register a trade mark they register it with this branch.


George Randolph Pearkes: The design of a trade mark has to be approved, and no insignia can be included in that design which was not approved by this branch if application was made to the branch to register the trade mark. Is that correct?


Colin William George Gibson: The hon. member seemed to be going around in a circle and I am afraid I could not follow him. An applicant for a trade mark submits his application to this branch. They examine it. If it is not against public policy in any way or does not infringe on existing trade marks, they will issue him the right to use that trade mark and prevent others from interfering with him.


William Alexander McMaster: I should like to speak about the accommodation of the trade marks branch. My experience has been that they operate their offices in an efficient manner. They have a system of cross-checking and double cross-checking, and they seem to be going at it in a businesslike way. But in my attendances at their offices I have noticed that they have only about three offices and a public hall in a building on Queen street. I should think that close to their offices other office space should be available. With all their inconveniences they do an extremely good job. I really believe that the time has come to make more space available to them. I noticed that the public office is really a private office used by several stenographers and one of the department heads. It cannot be entirely satisfactory to those who go there to make searches or to the staff itself.


Colin William George Gibson: I quite agree with my hon. friend that they have suffered the same disadvantages as to office space as others have suffered, and we hope to get them better accommodation.


Mr. MILLER:: The item for temporary assistance under this department has increased between $3,000 and $4,000. Is that because higher wages were paid or because more people were hired?


Colin William George Gibson: There is an increase in salaries which has been offset by other paylist items, including the bonuses that have been discontinued. The purpose of this vote 369 is to provide for salaries and various other expenses, including printing and stationery and travelling expenses for the staff.


Calvert Charlton Miller: I am referring to the temporary assistance, the $18,141 item on page 218 of the estimates, under "trade marks".


Colin William George Gibson: There has been, of course, a great deal of additional work in this department since the war ended, and that is why they had to take on temporary employees to cope with it.


Calvert Charlton Miller: Was that temporary assistance secured from other branches of the civil service, or was it extra help that was taken on?


Colin William George Gibson: It is extra help secured through the civil service commission. Whether these employees had previously been in other branches I would not know, because they were secured through the commission.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: Are the registrar of trade marks and the commissioner of patents one and the same person?


Colin William George Gibson: No; they are different.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: Why is the trade marks branch kept separate from the copyright and industrial design divisions, which is item 376? As I understand it, these matters all come under the Unfair Competition Act. Is there a differentiation between trade marks, copyright and industrial designs?


Colin William George Gibson: Yes. Industrial designs do not come under the Unfair Competition Act, and that is why they are separate.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: What about copyrights?


Colin William George Gibson: Copyrights do.


Angus MacInnis: In this trade marks branch I note that the salaries are $21,600, and that the salaries for temporary assistance are $18,150 approximately, so that they are almost the same for the permanent staff and the temporary staff. Does "temporary assistance" refer to that portion of the civil service staff which has not yet been made permanent?


Colin William George Gibson: Yes.


Angus MacInnis: It does not apply merely to persons taken on for shorter periods of time?


Colin William George Gibson: No. It means that the permanent establishment has not been built up beyond the figures shown in this case, which is eleven. We have temporary employees in addition to that.


Angus MacInnis: It is the policy of the government that a certain portion of the staff of each department shall be temporary.
Supply-Secretary oj State


Colin William George Gibson: Yes.


Angus MacInnis: I believe the idea was to keep it around ten per cent. Evidently it is much more than that in this instance. I take it that there are more temporaries in this branch than there are members of the permanent staff, because they would likely be the lower-paid staff. 'Since the total of both salaries is in each case almost the same, there would seem to be just as many temporaries as there are permanent, or more. I suggest that in the future the number of temporaries should be given as well as the number of permanents, so that we shall know exactly how many persons are employed in the branch.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: Do I take it that the trade marks branch is part and parcel of the accommodation provided for the patent office?


Colin William George Gibson: No. It has a separate office of its own at the present time.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: It has its own office?


Colin William George Gibson: Yes.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: Is further accommodation provided for the trade marks branch?


Colin William George Gibson: We have not got it yet, but we are hoping for additional accommodation for them as well.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: Would it be conjoint with the patent office?


Colin William George Gibson: I cannot say until we find out what the Department of Public Works can do for us. I am not sure how much space the patent office will require in the Canada building. If we had additional available space it would be convenient to have all our offices in close contact.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: Is the trade marks office separate from the patent office?


Colin William George Gibson: Yes.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: So far as administration and records are concerned?


Colin William George Gibson: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
370.	Bureau for translations, $503,505.
Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: There is an item here of over half a million dollars, there being an increase of over $11,000 as compared with last year. Would the minister give a little sketch of the work of this particular bureau and at the same time account for the increase? When I hear what he has to say I may have another question to direct to him.


Colin William George Gibson: The bureau for translations provides all the translators for the various departments of government. There is some increase from the previous year. Whereas it was $492,000 last year, this year it is $503,000, and most of that increase is due to salary increases.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I take it that practically the whole item is devoted to salaries of translators. Is that a fact? What languages are handled besides English and French?


Colin William George Gibson: I could not enumerate all the languages, but we have translators who can translate in most languages in current use.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Has any work been done by this particular group of translators for the censorship branch of the customs end of the Department of National Revenue? Do other departments submit to this particular branch various works for translations from time to time?


Colin William George Gibson: This division provides translators. In many cases they are attached to other government departments, but they are carried and financed through the bureau for translations, although they may be regularly attached to one of the departments of government.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Would I be safe in saying that the censorship branch has no translators of its own but submits work to this particular department?


Colin William George Gibson: I would not say it submits its work. I would have to get the details of the particular branch, but the chances are that a translator from this bureau is attached to the censorship branch.


Mr. BROOKS :: I notice that this year there are no supervisors of technical translations, but there are ten for 1947-48 and there were twenty parliamentary translators for 1946-47 and twenty-two for 1947-48. Would the minister explain the difference between a technical translator and a parliamentary translator, and why it is necessary to add ten next year and none this year? There are head translators, principal translators and senior translators. What are the functions of all these different translators?


Colin William George Gibson: Of course the functions of the translators are to translate.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yes, I understand that.
That is a rather smart remark. But what is the difference between a technical translator and a parliamentary translator? I know they are all to translate. But why not call them all translators? -

Supply-Secretary of State


Colin William George Gibson: The
parliamentary translators are those who are employed in the House of Commons, translating parliamentary papers at the House of Commons. This bureau provides all the translators required in the government service. The supervisors are those who have been put in a supervisory position to look after those who are in the junior positions.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: What is a technical translator?


Colin William George Gibson: He is
one who translates technical documents, such as those which come from foreign countries to the patent office; for example those that come from Germany, or those in Spanish.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Why is it you need them for next year but did not need them for this year? Were there no technical documents to translate in the past?


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is a senior translator?


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: Shall the
item carry?


Mr. RINFRET:: Would it be a fair statement to make that if we had bilingual administrative officers many of these ninety-six translators would not be necessary?


Colin William George Gibson: No, I
would not think that would be a fair inference at all, because a great many of these translators are doing just routine work-translating documents in a routine way-which a senior official would not be handling.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That is exactly what I
mean. If they are doing routine work on correspondence and things like that, if there were bilingual officers to look after that routine correspondence which comes in in French, for instance, or in English, and those officers were able to handle both French and English it would not be necessary to have as many translators in that department, and the routine would be handled much faster.


Colin William George Gibson: In some
cases it would reduce the number by a small amount.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The minister has not
answered my question. Might I suggest that it might have been a good idea if he had had his technical advisers in front of him. They might have been able to tell us what technical translators are for.
Mr. MhcINNIS:	May I ask the minister-


Alfred Johnson Brooks: He has not answered my
question yet.



S3166-297

Angus MacInnis: -what is the difference
between supervisors of technical translation and head translators? I notice that there are ten supervisors of technical translation this year and there were not any last year. On the other hand, there were fourteen head translators last year and there are only three this year.


Colin William George Gibson: I cannot tell. I can secure that information but I presume that is a-


Angus MacInnis: Reshuffle.


Colin William George Gibson: -reclassification by the civil service commission. I can get that information for my hon. friend, but I cannot give it at the moment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
S71. Canada Temperance Act, $4,500.
Mr. McKAY:: What is the purpose of this item? Why is there a $2,000 increase this year? Is the act being applied now? If so, where?


Colin William George Gibson: The Canada Temperance Act applies in a few places in Canada. The cost of administration is really the cost of having prosecutions in those centres where we are in charge of administering the act. I may say the fines which have been secured fairly well offset the cost of that branch to the department, but they go into the eon-solidated revenue fund.	[DOT]


Douglas King Hazen: Why are no details given of this item in the same way as they are given with regard to other items? It is not marked statutory. There is just a blank there.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The less said about it, the better.


Colin William George Gibson: Because it is only a sum of money which is voted as a contingency in case it is needed for the coming year. It is to pay the fees of administering the act if any cases came up which require the engaging of counsel. We have not any permanent staff engaged in doing that work.


Douglas King Hazen: Of the amount which was voted last year for doing that work, how much was paid out?


Colin William George Gibson: Expenditures for 1946-47, $6,250.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
372. Bankruptcy Act administration, $32,960.
Douglas King Hazen: How many petitions in bankruptcy were filed last year, and how many the year before?

Supply-Secretary oj State


Colin William George Gibson: I shall have to get that information for my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
ST3. Citizenship branch, $79,300.
Douglas King Hazen: If I understood the minister correctly, he told us, under item 369, that the citizenship branch looked after education and training for citizenship.


Colin William George Gibson: No.


Douglas King Hazen: Looked after education and training of people who had acquired citizenship.


Colin William George Gibson: No. I should like to explain that.


Douglas King Hazen: I did not understand it.


Colin William George Gibson: Education comes under the jurisdiction of the provinces.


Douglas King Hazen: I understand that. Is this education and training of people who apply to become citizens or of people who have received certificates of citizenship?


Colin William George Gibson: No. This branch is working in conjunction with the provinces to provide that those people who come to this country and wish to become naturalized, or are eligible to become naturalized. They should receive some training in citizenship so that they will be able to pass the examinations they are faced with when they appear before the judge in court. For example, I have a letter which I received just a few days ago from a judge out west in which he says that of nineteen applicants there was only one who had even the foggiest idea of what citizenship in this country meant, and he points out the necessity of having some training in citizenship for newcomers to this country. A month or two ago I held a meeting with representatives of the departments of education of all the provinces, with the exception of Ontario and Quebec. We drew up a tentative plan whereby the provinces would undertake to do a certain amount of training, and we were investigating in what way we could assist by providing them with material which would enable them to have a standard course of education throughout the whole country.


Douglas King Hazen: In the details on page 219 of the estimates, I notice that there is a director of this branch who gets So,400; a clerk, grade 4, who gets $2,004; then there is temporary assistance, $54,696. Can the minister give us a break-down of how it is proposed to spend that money?


Colin William George Gibson: This is, of course, a new branch which was organized
I Mr. Hazen.]
shortly before the first of this year when the Citizenship Act came into force, with the result that we took on a temporary staff. Only the two permanent employees were in the branch, and they were permanent because they had been permanent government employees prior to being moved over to the citizenship branch. The staff is now about twenty. They examine foreign language newspapers and keep in touch with the various organizations which can assist in citizenship training throughout the country. We have many calls from various foreign groups in the country to provide speakers to address them and give them talks on citizenship in Canada.


Douglas King Hazen: Last year we voted $34,000 for this purpose. Is that amount all paid in wages or salaries to temporary staff, or is some of it expended in other ways?


Colin William George Gibson: That
$34,000 was for the previous year. It is $54,000 this year.


Douglas King Hazen: I am asking whether it was all expended on wages or salaries, or was some of it for that purpose, and some of it for something else?


Colin William George Gibson: It was all for wages and salaries.


Douglas King Hazen: Were all those wages and salaries, or practically all, paid here in Ottawa to people employed here, or were they paid in other provinces?


Colin William George Gibson: It was all paid here.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: What is the basis of temporary assistance? I understand1 that in the Post Office Department-and certainly in my city it is this way-ten per cent of the staff is kept permanently on the temporary list. In other words of the total complement of personnel ten per cent is always temporary. Is there a rule of that kind which runs through all government departments, and in particular the Department of the Secretary of State? What is the nature of this temporary employment? How long have these people who are drawing temporary assistants' pay this year been with the department? Perhaps the minister can tell us the personal history of employment of those people, so that we might have some idea of the situation. Then, are any of the temporary help employed by the minister's department or, to his knowledge other departments of government, either permanently or temporarily employed by other departments of governmert?

Supply-Secretary oj State


Colin William George Gibson: Prior to the war, it was the custom-and it has been carried on since-to have a certain percentage of each staff on the temporary list, so that if the work declined the staff could be reduced.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: How does that work out in the minister's department?


Colin William George Gibson: During the war the number of temporaries increased tremendously. We had the veterans preference, of course, and practically no permanent appointments were made during the war. The result is that we have in all departments a large number of temporaries who could not be made permanent during the war and, if there are no veterans available, will be eligible for permanent appointment to take over the positions they are now occupying.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: That answers only part of my question. In other words, this matter of temporary assistants is an outgrowth of war conditions?
' Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West): I should say that it is, to some extent.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I should like to know what it is to the full extent.


Colin William George Gibson: In any department the permanent staff is set at a certain number. If additional employees are required, temporary employees can be secured. But the department is still limited to the original number of permanent employees, unless the permanent establishment of the department is increased. Until that permanent establishment has been set, the department cannot, of course, appoint permanent employees to fill positions.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: How long is it before the minister can obtain from his colleagues permission to put temporary staff on the permanent list? Does it run into two years, five years or ten years? I have come across cases in the Post Office Department where it runs into many years. What has been the experience in this department with respect to temporary assistants who this year will draw $54,000? How long have those individuals been with the department, and how long have they been temporary?


Colin William George Gibson: This is a new branch, of course, which has just been set up.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: What about the minister's department?


Colin William George Gibson: In the other departments, many of them have been 83166-297J
in for five or six, or perhaps seven or eight years. That, of course, is due largely to war conditions. I believe it was customary before the war that a person would not remain temporary for more than five or six years, if he was giving good service. Then a vacancy would occur; someone would retire, and there would be an opportunity for a temporary employee to be absorbed into the permanent establishment. The civil service commission has been making a survey of various government departments to find out what the permanent establishments should be. It is all being revised at the present time.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: May I have an answer to my last question? Are some of the minister's temporary help also employed in other departments?


Colin William George Gibson: I do not understand the question.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Let us suppose a man has a post with the civil service in one department. Can he do temporary work in the minister's department or in some other department; or can a man who has not a full-time job with any department be on the temporary list of several departments of government?


Colin William George Gibson: He can fill only one position at one time. He cannot have two positions at the same time.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: It is quite possible that a man may fill in, in one department for part of the year, and then may go to another department; does that not happen?


Colin William George Gibson: That happens all the time, yes.


Eric Bowness McKay: How many of the new $5 Canadian citizenship certificates have been issued up to date?


An hon. MEMBER:: It is one dollar.


Colin William George Gibson: I gave that information a few minutes ago. There have been actually issued this year 2.816 certificates of proof of citizenship. However, there are many applications now under consideration which have not been dealt with.


Calvert Charlton Miller: In the list of temporary assistants, are there any employees who did not work for the government until they were taken over by the Department of the Secretary of State? If so, how many? Have all these so-called temporary assistants already been employed in other departments of government and, within the last year or so, been absorbed by this department?
Supply-Secretary of Stale


Colin William George Gibson: I cannot give that information, but perhaps I can secure it. We secure employees through the civil service commission, but I have no record of what they were doing before that.


Calvert Charlton Miller: If there are pools of unabsorbed temporary assistants in the different departments of government, I want to know whether or not the Department of the Secretary of State hires, through the civil service commission, individual temporary assistants, or whether they are absorbed from other departments?


Colin William George Gibson: If my department has a vacancy we apply to the civil service commission and they make an appointment. We do not hire direct.


Mr. BOUCHER:: How many employees in the minister's department who are now temporary have been there for more than five or six years? I understand that some departments have a habit of keeping employees a great many years on a temporary status. I do not believe the minister's department is one of the worst offenders in this respect. However I am wondering how many employees in his department who have served there for five or six years or more are still temporary.


Colin William George Gibson: I have not that information now, but I can get it. Of course a great many temporaries who came in during the war are still temporary.


Douglas King Hazen: I understood the minister to say a few minutes ago, in connection with the citizenship branch, that he had had a conference with representatives from a number of the other provinces about the work to be done. He added that that conference did not include Ontario and Quebec. I should like to ask him why Ontario and Quebec were not included. This was not a matter of interprovincial arrangements about taxation or anything like that; it had to do with the education of our future citizens.


Colin William George Gibson: I wrote to all the ministers of education in the provinces suggesting that this conference be held. Colonel Drew replied that he considered the facilities of Ontario were quite capable of providing whatever standard of education it was felt the immigrant should receive and that he did not consider it necessary to be represented at the conference. Premier Duplessis sent a telegram a few days before the conference stating that Quebec would not be represented. Apart from those two cases, all the other provinces were represented.
	'


Mr. JOHNSTON:: The minister gave us the number of citizenship applications which had been made and for which the SI fee was paid, but I should like to know in how many cases the $5 fee was paid and whether this has been refunded?


Colin William George Gibson: That would be included in the number of those who had applied for certificates in proof of citizenship.


Charles Edward Johnston: The number the minister gave would include the $5 applications?


Colin William George Gibson: No. The $5 applications are made by those being naturalized for the first time.


Charles Edward Johnston: When the citizenship bill first came down it provided for a fee of $5. How many applied under that and paid the S5 which will have to be refunded?


Colin William George Gibson: The
original bill provided that the applicant should pay $5, either for naturalization, or a certificate in proof of citizenship. With the consent of parliament we reduced the fee for a certifi-' cate in proof of citizenship to $1. Certificates in proof of citizenship were issued to a few applicants before the fee was reduced, but I have not the number. They would be entitled to have a refund of the extra S4.


Charles Edward Johnston: Has the $4 already been refunded?


Colin William George Gibson: I cannot say whether it has been, but it is due and it will be refunded.


William Alexander McMaster: 
Colin William George Gibson: There are a great number of people in this country who have oome from other countries. During the

Supply-Secretary of State
war very few people were naturalized and those of enemy nationality could not be naturalized. We are trying to raise the standard of education of those whom we receive as citizens. At one time a man could go before a judge, and if he could speak the English or the French language he was granted a certificate practically automatically. We sent out a letter to judges all across the country asking their opinions as to what should be the minimum standard of education or training for these applicants. We received some most interesting letters from judges all over the country. Those were summarized. The general opinion was that 'the person being naturalized should at least be able to read a daily paper printed either in English or in French, so that he would not 'have to rely .upon a foreign language paper. We should like, if possible, to get these applicants up to a standard whereby they would know something about our ideas of democracy and our way of life.


William Alexander McMaster: Have any schools been opened for that purpose? Where is the money being spent?


Colin William George Gibson: That is what we were discussing with the provinces. It is hoped to be able to build up classes in the various provinces to give instructions to these new Canadians.


Mr. LENNARD:: The new Canadians who come here at the present time will have to go on the land and they will be scattered all over the country. How could you have a class in one central area for those people? They will not attend such a class or, if they do, it will be at considerable expense to someone because they will not have the funds themselves. I think it is a waste of money.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I should like to bring up the matter I brought up before. Here is a vote of $54,000 for temporary assistance in this branch. The total estimates are $1,228,000, of which $429,000 is for temporary assistance. Yet we never get an itemized account.


Charles Edward Johnston: I wish to refer again to the education given to these new citizens. The minister said that he had received quite a few letters from judges throughout the country complaining about the standard of education, and he went on to indicate that in his opinion they should be able to read newspapers. I am sure there are some of us here who cannot read newspapers and get any sense out of them.


Humphrey Mitchell: You might say the same thing about Hansard.


Charles Edward Johnston: I did not want to appear personal, so I did not make that reference. I know personally where people have come before a judge and he has said to them, "You cannot read English; you will have to postpone your application." Where are those people to go? The minister has indicated that there have been some conversations with the provinces, but have any schools been opened for these people to attend? I do not suppose it is expected that they will attend the public schools. Are you expecting that a person of forty or fifty years of age will go through the school and take a course in English literature or something of that kind? It seems to me that the minister is going into something which will entail a considerable amount of money if any results are to be obtained. I am not belittling the idea that these people should be educated in the English language before they are allowed citizenship, but I am just wondering how the money will be spent.


Colin William George Gibson: Classes have been conducted in some cities for many years.


Charles Edward Johnston: What is the procedure in connection with those classes?


Colin William George Gibson: They are being held in normal schools. For instance, in Toronto they had a successful class which used to meet in one of the normal schools. Various instructors would come there to instruct.


Charles Edward Johnston: Would attendance be compulsory, and would they pay for tuition?


Colin William George Gibson: Not at all. Those who wished to attend were permitted to attend. That was provided by the departments of education in the various provinces, and it is hoped that these classes will be extended. It may be necessary to have teachers travel to various centres and hold classes once a week or so many times a month, or whatever the provinces can arrange. We do want them to get some instruction.


Charles Edward Johnston: Will the schools set up by the provinces be assisted by a dominion grant?


Colin William George Gibson: They wrould not likely get a government grant, although I should not be too sure about that because nothing has been arranged with the provinces on that point. The matter is under consideration. We will assist them as far as we can in providing textbooks.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: The director of the branch is getting an increase of over $2,000. Is a change being made there?
Supply-Secretary of State


William Alexander McMaster: What was actually spent last year?


Colin William George Gibson: We actually spent in 1946-47, 858,006.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: Is a new director being appointed?


Colin William George Gibson: The director was a permanent civil servant, in the Department of Agriculture. During the war he was given other duties and was drawing the war duties supplement in addition to his permanent salary from the Department of Agriculture. Now that he is with this branch his salary as a permanent civil servant is $5,400.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: What are his qualifications for the position? It seems to be a senior position.


Colin William George Gibson: He is a man who has had overseas service. He has had wide experience in public service. I think he is president of the agricultural federation of Canada. He has given very good service in organizing this citizenship branch, and that is the chief function of his division.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I asked the minister before whether there were any employees of other departments who were on his temporary staff. The minister now mentions that during the war years this particular gentleman was seconded from the Department of Agriculture, whether on part time or full time-


Colin William George Gibson: On full time.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: -and that he drew the war duties supplement and now is being raised to a more adequate salary; is that the story?


Colin William George Gibson: No. He was drawing his salary as a permanent employee of the Department of Agriculture. Then he was transferred or lent to another department, and for those new duties he received the war duties supplement.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: That was the question I asked, whether there were any employees from one department of government who became temporary assistants in another department and therefore drew 'remuneration from two departments? The war may have led to unusual and necessary situations of that kind. What I am asking is, are there any employees in the year 1947 in one department of government who are lent or seconded or otherwise giving their services to another department and being paid therefor by two departments?


Colin William George Gibson: No
employee is being paid by two departments. This employee was permanently employed by the Department of Agriculture at the salary rate set for his duties. When he was doing temporary work in another department he was paid his regular rate of salary, plus the war duties supplement to which he was entitled. He has now been transferred to the Department of Secretary of State and draws his salary from this department at this rate.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I do not know anything about the gentleman, how able he is or otherwise. I do not know whether he is young or elderly, but his total remuneration in 1946-47, even with the war duties supplement, was $3,240.


Colin William George Gibson: No; that was his permanent salary. His war duties supplement was in addition to that.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: How much would his war duties supplement be, approximately?


Colin William George Gibson: To bring it up to $5,400, and when he was given a permanent appointment in the citizenship branch he was given what he was drawing before.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: He must have been
getting a very large war duties supplement.


Colin William George Gibson: He was
doing important work.


Frank Exton Lennard: The minister said that
the citizenship branch proposes to publish certain text books which will be suitable for new Canadians. There is an item here of $8,000 for printing, but I do not suppose that would cover these textbooks. How is it proposed to cover the cost of the textbooks? Have any textbooks been printed so far?


Colin William George Gibson: All we
have done so far is to have some pamphlets printed. As I said before, education is within the jurisdiction of the provinces, and all this has to be worked out in conjunction with the provinces.


Mr. BELZILE:: Have the clerks of the
superior courts of the province of Quebec been provided with forms in the French language for applicants for citizenship certificates?


Colin William George Gibson: If they
have not got them I will see that they get them. We have had application forms printed in the French language for that purpose.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: They have been waiting
for them for six months.

Sup-ply-Secretary of State


George Hugh Castleden: Has the minister a
break-down by provinces and by district courts of the number of applications for certificates that have been refused?


Colin William George Gibson: Applications for naturalization?


George Hugh Castleden: Yes.


Colin William George Gibson: I have
not got that, but possibly it can be secured.


George Hugh Castleden: I should like to get
that from the department.


Colin William George Gibson: I will try to get it.


George Hugh Castleden: A good many people came to this country as adults and now they wish to make application for citizenship. They appear in the district court before the district court judge and very often they feel intimidated by the very atmosphere of the court. Sometimes they report to me that they went into the courtroom, which they usually associate with crime, and they were so completely upset by their surroundings and the number of questions fired at them that they became confused and did not really understand the questions which were being asked. Could there not be some uniformity of examination by the judges? Otherwise there are bound to be differences of opinion among the judges as to the applicant's knowledge of his responsibilities as a citizen. Is any textbook prepared similar to the one which is used in the United States? They have a similar department over there. Last year I understood from the then secretary of state that it was the intention of the department to publish a number of these booklets and make them available to persons who are making application. The waiting period in Canada is quite long. When they make application such a textbook should be placed in their hands. Such a textbook would go a long way toward showing them what their responsibilities and rights are in a democratic state. Has such a textbook been prepared?


Colin William George Gibson: With reference to the first question, I mentioned a few minutes ago that we had circularized all the judges in Canada to find out if we could adopt a common standard throughout the country. I quite realize, as the hon. member has said, that standards vary in various localities according to the personality of the judge, and the judge himself has, of course, the final decision. We received replies from the judges across the country as to what they thought should be a common standard. Those
were summarized, and we have sent copies out to the judges so that they will have it, not as instructions from our department, but as a summary of the advice received from the judges themselves. In that way we hope to have more or less a common Standard adopted throughout the counfry.
The first publication that we are getting out I hope to have ready early in July, which will be available to be given to newcomers to this country when they arrive. We got one out in Polish which we gave to the Polish soldiers when they came. It is not as elaborate as the one which is used in the United Statps at the present time. We hope to make progress and to have better publications as time goes on.


Mr. GAUTHIER (Portneuf):: I know
there are French citizenship certificates and English ones, but I should like to know from the minister whether his department has considered issuing bilingual certificates.


Colin William George Gibson: Yes, that has been given careful consideration, but there is so much on the certificate, both on the front and on the back of it, that it was felt it would be confusing to an applicant coming to this country, who perhaps knows only one language, either French or English, to receive the certificate partly in a language which he does not understand. Consequently it was felt that it would be better to give him a certificate in either the French or the English language, whichever was the language that he had acquired while in this country.


Pierre Gauthier: What if he does not know either the English or the French language?


Colin William George Gibson: Then he is not qualified for citizenship.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: For purposes of travelling, would it not be preferable to have both the French and the English language on the same certificate as is done with passports, because an English person having an English certificate and going to France would find that they could not read the English language, and conversely a French-speaking Canadian with a French certificate going to England would be embarrassed by the fact that the certificate is not in English.


Colin William George Gibson: Of course a citizenship certificate is not a passport; it is not intended for the purpose of being used as a passport.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: For identification purposes.


Colin William George Gibson: Yes.


Gordon Graydon: Some time ago I asked the minister whether he would consider having
Supply-Secretary of State

the citizenship certificate printed in a form similar to that which is used for birth certificates in Ontario. He said that he would consider the matter. Has he given any further consideration with respect to this?


Colin William George Gibson: I took the matter up, but I received a reply on the costs from the company which manufactures these only about two or three days ago. I have not had time yet to give much consideration as to whether it would be desirable at this time to do that or not.


Gordon Graydon: As I pointed out before, a big certificate would be fine perhaps for someone who values this kind of thing to keep in his home or in some other place; but when he wants to use it for the purpose of identification or for some other purpose, I believe that custom and usage have brought these things down to rather small dimensions. I think a size of the birth certificate which I hold in my hand would be more helpful, because when an individual wishes to go across the border or to use it for some other purpose he will find that a certificate of this size would fit into a billfold quite easily. The people of Ontario have found these eminently satisfactory.


Thomas Reid: Is that a photostatic copy of the original?


Gordon Graydon: This is a birth certificate af one of my own children. I brought it to the minister's attention some time ago to indicate the type of certificate it is.


Colin William George Gibson: There is one disadvantage about having that type of certificate. It is so easily carried that it can be easily lost. There would be the danger of a certificate being carried by people being lost, which might be of value to people into whose hands we would not want it to fall. Consequently it might be better to have certificates in a larger form which could not so easily be carried or so easily lost.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Patent and copyright office-
374. Administration division, $35,424.
George Russell Boucher: Some time ago during this session the minister told the house that each year the patent office had a substantial surplus which was transferred to the consolidated revenue fund. He also told us that the quarters of the patent office are inadequate, and that a revision of the whole administration of the patent office and of its quarters was contemplated in order to take care of the increasing use of the office and to modernize

it in keeping with patent facilities of other nations. Can the minister at this time give the committee an explanation as to what progress is being made in that regard, because I can assure him that any person who has had occasion to solicit the issuance of patents or to visit the patent office will be entirely in agreement with the minister in bringing about a change in the administration, in the quarters and in the procedure which is under contemplation? It would be appreciated if he would enlarge upon this matter and tell us what progress is being made in that regard.


Colin William George Gibson: This
really shows the disadvantage of going from item to item. The administration of the Secretary of State's office was discussed at the opening of the session tonight, and I said that we expected to move into the building which has been vacated by the Department of National Defence. I am hoping to have my patent division in there' within the next week or two.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: In connection with patents which were issued before the war and in connection with certain patents that had to be held up because of the war and because of the lack of material during the war which prevented the manufacture and development of these patents, what procedure has a person to go through in order to have an extension of that patent? It seems to me unfair that certain people should have been held up and have not had time within the life of the patent to develop it. Is there not some way whereby that can be corrected, so that they can go to a court of law or to some such place in order to have the matter adjudicated and bring witnesses and so on? Is something being done about that?


Colin William George Gibson: All that can be done by an act of parliament. One holder of a patent this year made application for an extension of his patent and parliament did not see fit to grant it. I do not think parliament as a whole has 'looked favourably on extensions of patents.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: What about the fairness of it? I was wondering whether the minister contemplated some provision whereby patents could be reviewed by courts instead of having to come to parliament where the proper witnesses cannot be brought to testify?


Colin William George Gibson: That is not under contemplation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Public Archives

[Stage Direction]
39. Salaries and expenses of office, $30,377.
Frank Exton Lennard: Why the decrease?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Only one by-election.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Demobilization and reconversion-
-J95. Supply of personnel for demobilization and reconversion services, $599,936.
Frank Exton Lennard: What is this amount for?


Colin William George Gibson: This
originally came in under the heading of "war expenditures", and it has been continued as a separate item from what is usual in the expenditures in the civil service commission. It is part of the wind-up of war expenditures.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
273. General administration and technical services, $152,297.
Frank Exton Lennard: There is an increase of $19,350. What is the reason for it?


Colin William George Gibson: During the war the archives staff was cut down materially. We have some representatives in France looking up material, and that office had been closed. The staff is now being brought up to usual strength again.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: What is being done in regard to the archives? I have been told on numerous occasions that we should consider more seriously the position of the archives branch of our government and that we might do more than we are doing, even at greater expense. The reason there may be a certain timeliness in that suggestion is that many historical documents and other treasures which would ordinarily find a safe resting place in the national archives are being sold to other bodies and even outside the country. Wpuld the minister sa.y a word or two in that regard and indicate whether any development is planned in the near future?


Colin William George Gibson: There was a recommendation before the war that the building itself should be enlarged, but that has not been possible up to the present time. The staff of the archives are doing what they can to keep up to date with the material. They are making copies of all material dealing with the early history of the country. I do not believe that we have enough money to buy as much of the material that is now available as we should. It is a matter in which I intend to take some interest. This year we are really just carrying along on the 83166-298
routine we have followed in previous years, and it is possible that we should do more than we are doing at the present time.


George Russell Boucher: Last year, for temporary assistance, there was $14,000 odd and this year there as an estimate of $36,000 odd. Can the minister explain the great increas''?


Colin William George Gibson: Staffs wb.e cut down tremendously during the war, and the work of the archives both overseas and in this country was greatly curtailed. We are now trying to catch up.


George Russell Boucher: Is there any reason why, if the staff is being increased, it should be increased on a temporary rather than on a permanent basis?


Colin William George Gibson: Until the positions are established as permanent and until we know that there are no veterans available-some of these temporaries were not overseas-it is not considered advisable to make them permanent.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: When did the minister last have a report on the general policy of the archives branch? I do not mean from the director general, but a report on what the archives should consist of. I recall that there was one some years ago, although I am not sure if there has not been another in recent years. Would the minister consider, at little or no expense, having some of our historians, aided by the director general, draft a report? We should be out of pocket only actual cost of travelling and the sittings, so that we would have a definite policy for our archives and get together our national treasures, which may be lost if we do not act with promptness.


Colin William George Gibson: The
department does get out a report. It prints a number of interesting papers which it has uncovered during the last year. I agree that the policy of the archives might well receive further consideration.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Was there a commission in recent years, or was there one five or ten years ago?


Colin William George Gibson: I do not know.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
273. Departmental administration, $39,658.
Mr. NICHOLSON:: I understand that there is an order in council which requires all accounts sent to members of parliament to be paid immediately before further supplies are
1EVISED EDITION
4662	COMMONS
Supply-Public Printing and Stationery
issued to them. I would imagine that the accounts of members of parliament would be a fairly safe risk. Most members undoubtedly pay their bills at the end of the year. What is the reason for this order in council? Members should be encouraged to send out Hansard to their constituents and so make use of the printing service.


Colin William George Gibson: Should they be so encouraged?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Will the minister
indicate whether it is bad accounts that are responsible for the passing of the order in council?


Colin William George Gibson: This is not a recent order in council, but an old one that has never been repealed. The king's printer told me that the matter had come up for discussion not long ago and that it might be brought up on my estimates. The order in council provides that no further orders for printed material shall be accepted from a member of parliament while he had an account outstanding. I do not know how strictly that order has been enforced, but it is an old one. It is not of recent origin.


Gordon Graydon: Surely there are no members behind in their accounts.


Humphrey Mitchell: They are no different from other men.


Frank Exton Lennard: It is a very good rule. Someone this session checked up on me because I had not paid my bill last year and I did pay it. It is a very good rule that should be strictly adhered to.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It seems to me that bills should be paid within a reasonable time, fortnightly or monthly, but to press the matter to the point of requiring payment on Monday for some Hansards that one may have ordered on Thursday, is going too far.


Colin William George Gibson: The king's printer can be relied upon to use his discretion.


Frank Exton Lennard: That is ridiculous. If a bill is left over and not paid before the next session, then they do check on you, but they do not check if you have not paid for something owing last week.
Mr. McLUR'E: What is the revenue from the department?


Colin William George Gibson: I will get that in just a moment.


William Henry Golding: Shall the item carry in the meantime?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No. I should like to make a suggestion to the minister. At the present time we have a standing committee of the house on printing.


Gordon Graydon: Are you sure?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is really a farce because it meets only once a year and then only for about three minutes. That committee should meet and have something to do with this printing bureau. That is part of their business, or at least it should be. In any event, I make that suggestion and ask the minister to think it over.


Colin William George Gibson: I agree with my hon. friend. As a matter of fact, I spoke to the chairman of the printing committee suggesting that they give some attention to that branch of the work.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Good enough.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I did not realize that this item would be coming up. Therefore I have not in front of me a sessional paper which I wish I had here. It has to do with the amount of overtime which employees at the printing bureau had to put in during last year, 1946. The figures which were given in the return to which I refer, and which was tabled by the minister in this house not long ago, indicated a pretty high percentage of overtime last year, t is true that the greatest number of hours of overtime were put in during the months in which parliament was in session, and particularly during the months when we were meeting eight hours a day. But it is also true that there was more overtime than one would expect even in the months when parliament was not in session. The answer to that, it seems to me, would be-


An hon. MEMBER:: Shorter speeches.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -an increase in the number of employees at the printing bureau. Has that matter been considered? Can the minister state whether there has been any improvement in the situation?


Colin William George Gibson: The work has been particularly heavy, especially when the session is on. It is not easy to get printers. The matter is certainly being carefully watched by the king's printer, because we do not want to overload our employees if we can possibly avoid doing so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest that an effort should be made to get a sufficient staff, so that during the months when parliament is

Supply-Public Printing and Stationery
not in session there would be no overtime. One can understand the need for overtime when parliament is in session, but it seems to me that it should be the aim to have a sufficient number of employees to make overtime unnecessary when parliament is not sitting.


Humphrey Mitchell: I should like to make a suggestion with regard to these hundreds and thousands of speeches which hon. members have printed below cost, which nobody ever reads and which are just propaganda at the public expense. If hon. members would curtail them just a little, there would not be any need for overtime.


Stanley Howard Knowles: For the benefit of my genial friend, the Minister of Labour, I might say that sometimes when he makes a speech, some of us find that is a particularly good Hansard to send out. People enjoy reading it.


Humphrey Mitchell: You are speaking about the Minister of Labour. Speak about yourself.


Mr. HARKNESS:: You mean they are
all humorous?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now that Hansard has been referred to, I should like to ask the present Secretary of State the same question I asked his predecessor last year. Is the government giving any consideration to ways and means of increasing the circulation of Hansard itself? I am not referring only to the reprints to which the Minister of Labour has made reference, but to Hansard itself.


John Lambert Gibson: The hon. member will take care of that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As the minister and other members who are interrupting know, there are responsible bodies of people in this country who consider that it would be a good idea for more Canadians to know what is going on in parliament. There was an organization known as "The Friends of Hansard".


George Russell Boucher: Don't talk about the enemies of Hansard.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I believe the figure given last year was that the total printing of Hansard runs about 9,000 a day. To me that seems to be a low figure for a population of 12,000.000, if proceedings in this House of Commons are as important to the nation as we here in this room will agree that they are.


Colin William George Gibson: I cannot say that the king's printer's department has been taking any steps to increase the circulation of Hansard, although we make it available when people require it.
83166-298i


Stanley Howard Knowles: One way to increase the circulation would be to reduce the subscription rate of $3 a session to something less.


An hon. MEMBER:: You would lose money if you did that.


George Russell Boucher: Under this department I do not see anything which would indicate what is paid for printing and binding outside the printing bureau. I understand that for the past number of years the work has been so heavy in the government printing bureau that a great many parcels of work or contracts have been let out to printing firms outside the printing bureau itself. Can the minister tell us what was paid to printing and binding firms outside of the printing bureau, and where we shall find those amounts in the estimates?


Colin William George Gibson: Of course that amount is the total amount which will be required for the year. We cannot say how much will be printed in the bureau and how much will be printed outside the bureau. It will at best be only an estimate.


George Russell Boucher: Here we are voting some $250,000, presumably to the printing bureau for printing and binding, and apparently there is no information available as to what portion is being done by the dominion printing bureau and what portion is being done by contract elsewhere. I believe it is important to parliament that we should have that information.


Colin William George Gibson: I will get that from the king's printer, and I can let my hon. friend know.


Mr. McCULLOUGH (Assiniboia):: There is a matter I should like to bring to the minister's attention. Both last year and this year the quality of the envelopes which we have been using has been such that one could read right through them. In addition to that, the glue was of such poor quality that they apparently could not be sealed. I think that matter should have the department's attention.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Can the minister tell us what the revenue of the printing bureau was last year? I do not think he gave that.


Colin William George Gibson: I am getting that. I have not it yet.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Why does the minister not get some of the men with the big books to help him?


Colin William George Gibson: They are coming.


Mr. ARSENAULT:: We understand that the total daily circulalion of Hansard is about
4664	COMMONS
Supply-Public Printing and Stationery _
9,000. How much of that is paid circulation? How many paid subscribers are there?


Colin William George Gibson: The question asked about the revenue or profit of the printing bureau is a difficult one, in that the printing bureau operates on a revolving fund. When publications are sold to government departments they are sold at cost. There is revenue from such publications as the Canada Gazette and the statutes or any other government publications sold to the public. But the operations of the printing bureau as a whole are not set up on a basis of profit, expenses and revenue.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I understand that this year the printing bureau did work for outsiders; is that correct?


Colin William George Gibson: No.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Have they done any work outside government work?


Colin William George Gibson: No, not any outside work. We have to put out a great deal of the work.


Bona Arsenault: Would the minister have any objection to answering my question? Out of the circulation of Hansard which, I believe, amounts to 9,000, how many are paid subscribers?


Colin William George Gibson: I understand that it is about half.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: What was the question?


Bona Arsenault: I have my answer.


James Arthur Ross: Let us hear it.


George Russell Boucher: What work is let by contract outside the printing bureau, and what are the expenses? Upon whose authority or responsibility is the decision made as to what work is to be done by the printing bureau and what is not. I am told, as was the hon. member for Peterborough West, that some printing, which could not be described strictly as government printing, has been done by the printing bureau. I was wondering under whose jurisdiction this additional work is being done by the printing bureau?


Colin William George Gibson: During the war the printing bureau let out. about $5 million of printing a year. I understand that it now runs to about S3,500,000. The printing bureau does work to a value of about $2,500,000 to $3,000,000.


George Russell Boucher: Is there no possibility of getting a break-down showing where that money is being spent? It seems to me that the cost of the printing bureau as set out in

the estimates is a comparatively small portion of the total cost of printing for government services. I am wondering where the information would appear in the estimates, so that parliament would have some check in the matter.


Colin William George Gibson: The public accounts show where contracts have been let. The information can be obtained there.


William Alexander McMaster: There is only a lump sum shown for the year ended March 31, 1946. It shows $3,500,000 paid outside, but there is no break-down.


Colin William George Gibson: I understand that every contract over $200 is included.


George Russell Boucher: I am not satisfied with the minister's statement as to the cost of printing last year. Here we have an estimate for the ensuing year showing a total of $250,000 for the printing bureau. The minister tells us that printing to a value of $3,500,000 has been let out, and will probably be let out this year, to private concerns. It is not sufficient that that information be given in the public accounts. We should have that information in the estimates as well, arid at this time we should have a more detailed statement from the minister as to what is being done along these lines.


Colin William George Gibson: Does the hon. member want a list of the firms which have received contracts? That information can be secured.


George Russell Boucher: Yes. I should like
information not only with respect to what was spent a few years ago, but with respect to what the government contemplates spending this year. There is a total estimate of $250,000, and yet our total printing and binding expense for the year is something like $6 million. I think it is high time we overhauled the whole system of the printing bureau and have placed before parliament something over which parliament would have some control.


William Alexander McMaster: I apologize to the
minister. Every contract over $5,000 is shown in the public accounts.


Colin William George Gibson: Thank
you.


George Russell Boucher: Can the minister give
any further information, because what appears in the public accounts concerns what has -been spent? Here we have a government which, according to the minister, would appear

Supply-Public Printing and Stationery
to be spending about S6 million a year. Yet the estimate for the ensuing year is for $250,000. I believe the government should forecast its contemplated expenditures in the estimates, as well as showing them in the public accounts after they have been spent. Parliament is entitled to know what the contemplated expenditures are to be, whether they be with the public printing bureau or with private concerns. If there is a vote of only $250,000 for the government printing bureau, and the government contemplates making contracts with private concerns to the extent of $3,500,000 we should have a big change in our printing bureau, and have the government take over a greater percentage of the printing.


Colin William George Gibson: The
estimate here is for the administration of the printing bureau. But the work done by the printing bureau is charged up to the departments for which the work is done. It is not included in the estimates of the printing bureau, but in those of the various departments concerned. We do include the printing of the Canada Gazette and the Statutes. Otherwise printing costs are charged to the departments concerned.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister will no doubt know that when a committee of the house meets it promptly passes an order to print 500 copies in English and 250 copies in French of the reports of the committee. I understand that the French editions of the proceedings are printed by various printing companies scattered throughout the province of Quebec, and this seems to be a reasonable way of doing it. I understand that in most cases the French edition is not received until long after the committee has ceased its sittings and, in most cases, after all interest in the matter has ceased. In the case of the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons set up to consider the Indian Act, I understand that the proceedings in French for the sessions during 1946 had not been printed up to two months ago. There is a large demand for these copies. I understand that the same thing applies to the reports of other committees, some'of them being two years in arrears. When the French copies are finally brought out, all interest in the matter has ceased and most of the copies probably find their way into waste-paper baskets. In other words, it is a total loss of public money. If possible, I should like the minister to give us the dates upon which the French copies of the reports of the various committees which met during 1946 were finally delivered. Some other arrangement should be made in order
that the French copies are received at the same time as the English copies are received, at least within a week or two after the particular session has been held.


Colin William George Gibson: The printing bureau print them as rapidly as they can get the translated copy from the translating bureau. I realize that there have been delays in printing in the last year or so, mainly due to the difficulty in obtaining qualified men. The king's printer is taking every step possible to speed up the publication and production of reports and other documents sent to him for printing.	.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not think that is good enough. Will the minister answer this question: Have the French copies of the reports of the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons which was set up to consider the Indian Act and which sat during 1946 been printed'? The way I stumbled on that situation was in trying to meet the requests of certain people for French copies of the reports. It was then that I discovered that they were two years in arrears.


Colin William George Gibson: I understand that copies in French of the report have been received quite recently.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What does "quite
recently" mean? Does the minister mean two months ago? I know that it was not so then.


Colin William George Gibson: I cannot give the exact date, but at least within the last few days.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Can we have the dates upon which copies in French of the reports of the various committees which met in 1946 were received?


Colin William George Gibson: I shall endeavour to get my hon. friend that information.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Is the work that is let out let out by tender and, if so, under whose authority?


Colin William George Gibson: All orders for $500 or over are let by tender under the authority of the king's printer.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: On the advice of whom? Is there a committee of the government?


Colin William George Gibson: If the king's printer is not able to undertake the work in the printing bureau, then he has to let it out to printing firms which will do the work.
4666	COMMONS
Supply-Public Printing and Stationery


Arthur Leroy Smith: If some of these reports are two months or a year or two years behind, is there any object in printing them at all? Surely it is just a waste of money. If a report has been made to the house and has been dealt with, is there any object in going any farther with it?


Colin William George Gibson: Personally I would not think so. However, if a committee has decided that its reports should be printed the printing bureau cannot come to the decision that the reports shall nbt be printed.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I am sure it would be
much preferable to change the procedure than not to print them.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am in most hearty agreement with that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That was the point of what I was saying. I think we have to have a change in the procedure, so that these things may be put out within two weeks after the committee has held its meeting. If there are any reports which are outstanding for a year or a year and a half, the minister should cancel them.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall the item carry?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think I should have an answer from the minister as to how many of these reports are still outstanding.


Colin William George Gibson: I cannot get that information right now, but I shall see that my hon. friend gets it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The item should stand.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No; stand.


George Russell Boucher: I think that is an important point, and the minister should give us more details as to the possibilities of the printing bureau being brought up to date so that this printing can be done in a more expeditious manner. The government is letting out a very large proportion of this work by tender when we have a printing bureau in Ottawa which should be capable of doing most of it. If the printing bureau has not the necessary facilities or the required staff, then I think the time has come when the government should see that those needs are met in order that satisfactory service may be rendered.


Colin William George Gibson: The hon. member lives in Ottawa, and he will probably realize that it was recommended before the war that the printing bureau should be enlarged and more modern equipment should be provided. That expenditure was held up
(Mr. C. W. G. Gibson.]
and it is still being held up to some extent. I think it is a little unfair to the king's printer to blame him for delays which have occurred because he is working under terrific pressure with the equipment he has.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Earlier tonight I stated that I felt there was too much overtime and that more employees should be supplied to the printing bureau in order to facilitate this work. I stand by that statement, but as one who has worked at the printing trade I should like to say something following the remarks of the hon. member for Carleton. I confess that I am amazed all through the sessions of parliament that the printing bureau, with the number of employees it has, is able to produce as rapidly as it does Hansard and the other material that comes to us. I think they have a tribute coming to them for the extent of their accuracy. They are human and they make mistakes as all of us do, but I think the typesetting and proof reading are excellent. Incidentally, most of the printers there belong to the international typographical union, which is the reason for that good work. Apart from that, I feel that, with all that is being said, some compliments should be paid to the staff at the printing bureau.


George Russell Boucher: I do not think anyone has cast any reflection upon the efficiency of the printing bureau employees. I do not believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has caught my point. The point is that the government has not provided facilities with which to do the work necessary to meet present-day requirements. I think hon. members are most appreciative of the promptness and efficiency of the printing bureau as far as what work we receive is concerned. But we cannot express that satisfaction about work which we have not received or which is received at such late dates.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: This item should stand until we get the answer which the minister said he will produce.


Colin William George Gibson: It will take a few days. I do not think the item should stand.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Parliament will still be sitting several days from now, and the item should stand in the meantime.


Mr. COCKERAM:: Now that the minister has his official in front of him, can he give us the revenue of this department?


Colin William George Gibson: As I explained before, there is no revenue. They have a circulating fund which is used for

Supply-Public Works
operating. They sell to the government departments at cost. The only revenue they get is the excess revenue from the sale of the Canada Gazette and from the sale of copies of the statutes.


An hon. MEMBER:: And from Hansards.


Alan Cockeram: How much money is received from this source?


Colin William George Gibson: $35,000 from publications.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
277. Distribution of official documents, $65,000.
Arthur Leroy Smith: I speak as one who has never in three sessions sent a speech out of this House of Commons, nor have I sent a copy of Hansard. That was my view as to what 1 said.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not even the speeches of the Minister of Labour?


Arthur Leroy Smith: No. I find some other people infinitely more amusing in this house than he is. This much is true with respect to item 277. There comes to our offices, I think daily, at least a pound of printed matter which goes over your shoulder into the waste-paper basket, if there is one behind your shoulder. It is our fault. I am not criticizing the printing bureau, because we in this House of Commons have authorized this thing. But it seems to me that the amount of useless matter which we get is beyond belief, and my suggestion to the minister is simply this, that in between the sessions he make a survey of this whole thing. In my opinion we receive in our offices more useless material than any other set of men in the world. I suggest that the minister look it over and see if he cannot cut it down. Some chap will say to me, "Have you seen so-and-so?" And I say, "No, thank heaven; I threw it in the waste-paper basket", and that is the attitude of the whole House of Commons. It does seem to me we could cut down on the material we get and hence on the expense.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Following up what the hon. member for Calgary West has said, here is a mass of evidence in twenty divorce cases which came to me the other day. I just picked it up and threw it under the seat because I do not read these cases. I believe that the distribution office should send out a notice to the members of this house and the other house and ask them if they want this evidence. If they want it, send it to
them. If they do not want it, do not send it. It is a waste of money to distribute it as is being done.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Architectural branch-
Construction, repairs and improvements of public buildings-Ontario-
288. Belleville-public building (revote) $52,000.
Bracebridge public building-addition and alterations (revote), $14,000.
Dominion public buildings-improvements and repairs, $400,000.
Hamilton-office building (revote), $100,000.
Leamington public building-addition, alterations and fittings (revote, $28,000), $33,000.
Ottawa-addition to physical metallurgy laboratory (revote). $60,000.
Ottawa Daly building-improvements to ventilation (revote, $10,000), $16,000.
Ottawa-departmental office building (revote),
[Stage Direction]
Ottawa-improvements	to ventilation in
House of Commons (revote), $20,000.
Ottawa-national film board-addition, alterations and air conditioning of John street accommodation (revote, $14,000), $24,000.
Ottawa-new supreme court building-renovation, completion and furnishing-(revote), $300,000.
Ottawa-building for Department of Veterans Affairs, $100,000.
Ottawa parliament buildings and grounds-[DOT] improvements (revote), $82,000.
Ottawa Rideau Hall-improvements and alterations (revote, $10,000), $40,000.
Ottawa Royal Canadian Mint-renewal of elevator and alterations to building-(revote, $12,000), $15,000.
Ottawa-storage building for national film board (revote, $3,000), $5,000.
Ottawa-testing laboratory for Department of Public Works (revote), $50,000.
Port Arthur-public building-purchase of site (revote). $50,000.
Sarnia public building-addition and alterations, etc. (revote, $10,000),'$25,000.
Sault Ste. Marie-public building (revote), $60,000.
Sudbury-public building site (revote), $105,000.
Toronto city delivery building-extension, restoration and mechanical equipment (revote, $520,000), $750,000.
Toronto postal terminal "A"-battery charging equipment (revote), $10,000.
Toronto-site for postal station on St. Clair avenue (revote, $40,000), $50,000.
Waterloo public building-addition and alterations, etc. (revote), $28,000.
Welland public building-addition and fittings, etc. (revote), $50,000.
Woodstock public building-addition, fittings and improvements to heating (revote, $24,000), $35,000.
Mr. STOKES': Would the minister give some details of the revote of $52,000 for a public building at Belleville?
Supply-Public Works
Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public Works):: This is a revote of $52,000 from last year to provide for the erection of a new public building to accommodate all the public services at Belleville. The existing public building erected in 1880 no longer provides sufficient space for the postal and customs business, and the erection of a new building is strongly recommended. This is only the first vote toward the construction of that building, for the preparation of plans and specifications. The building itself will cost far more than that. We shall know only when the tenders come in what the amount will be.


Mr. STOKES:: Is it the intention to have all the various federal branches in the one building?


Alphonse Fournier: I will give the hon. member every department which will be accommodated in this building: income tax division, unemployment insurance commission, trade and commerce, post office, agriculture, health and welfare, labour, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, customs, and the janitor's quarters.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I do not see anything in the estimates this year for a new federal building for Peterborough, which was promised us away back about 1900.


Alphonse Fournier: What year?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: About 1900.


Alphonse Fournier: I do not know what was proposed in 1900, but I do know that we are studying the possibility of having a new building in Peterborough, We are making a survey of every town and city in the country as to the needs of the different departments for the erection of new buildings. I will look into the Peterborough case and do my utmost to give the hon. gentleman satisfaction.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The customs house there has been overcrowded for some years, and it is awkward now for the officials of the customs house to work there. At the post office extra space has to be rented not just once a year but, I think, more than once a year, and the postmaster has had to give up some of the space in his office in order to make more room in the lobby of the post office for people to come in and post their letters. The lobby of the post office in Peterborough, a city of 35,000, is no larger, I think, than the post office in Lakefield, which has a population of only 1,600. I may say also that the washroom in the post office for the men is down in the basement and it is unsanitary and very small.


Frank Exton Lennard: What is this $100,000 revote for Hamilton for?


Alphonse Fournier: A revote of
$100,000 toward the purchase of a site and the erection thereon of an office building to provide accommodation for the Department of Veterans Affairs and the unemployment insurance commission in Hamilton. The cost of the proposed building is not known; it will run to about $500,000. That is just an estimate.


William Earl Rowe: Whereabouts is it being
built?


Alphonse Fournier: I am told that
they are considering the old collegiate site.


Frank Exton Lennard: Might I suggest that
the proposed revision of the income tax departments throughout Canada, if they do a good job, will make available plenty of room in the present federal building, and it will not be necessary to spend half a million dollars on additional public buildings in Hamilton. I am not one of those who advocate putting up public buildings all over the country. What I think we should do is attempt to cut down on these expenditures.


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. member is a great help to me.


Frank Exton Lennard: If you erect the building
you will have to keep it in repair at a great cost to the taxpayers of this country. I do not want the minister to put any post offices in my riding or make any additional grants in the form of public expenditure so far as public buildings are concerned. I think we have too many now.


Alphonse Fournier: That is good
news.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.	[DOT]
Architectural branch-Manitoba-
289. Dominion public buildings-improvements and repairs, $75,000.
Sit. Boniface public building-addition and alterations (revote, $18,000), $28,000.
Winnipeg-public building site (revote), $300,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister be
willing to allow this item to stand for ten or fifteen minutes? The other day he asked the hon. member for Churchill to wait until we reached this item, and he has been sent for.
Item stands.
Architectural branch-
Construction, repairs and improvements of public buildings-Alberta-
291. Calgary-accommodation for Department of Trade and Commerce (revote $25,500), $31,000.
Calgary-office building-(revote), $100,000.
Coutts-buildings for customs and immigration (revofe $-126,000), $140,000.

Supply-Public Works
Dominion public buildings-improvements and repairs, $75,000.
Edmonton-postal terminal (revote), $200,000. Edmonton-public building (revote), $100,000. Lethbridge public building-addition, etc. (revote), $14,000.
Peace River public building-local improvements (revote), $7,200.


Arthur Leroy Smith: With regard to accommodation for the Department of Trade and Commerce, revote $25,500, total of $31,000, a reduction of $4,000, will the minister please tell us what that is?


Alphonse Fournier: This is a revote of $25,000 for the construction of a building requested by the Department of Trade and Commerce to provide accommodation for their weights and measures inspection service at Calgary; to provide facilities for this service, particularly; for oil truck calibration is important in the Calgary district owing to its proximity to the Turner valley oil fields. The district inspector of the weights and measures section service at Calgary reports that a garage on Tenth avenue in which his department has installed a 50-gallon calibrating tank has been sold, and that he is expecting notice to vacate at any time. No other suitable accommodation is available for rental in Calgary. The estimated cost of the site is $1,375; the new building, $27,000; grading and sidewalks, $500; supervision, $1,000; contingencies, $2,625. We expect to spend that amount this year. W'e expect to spend the amount of $31,000 on that building for weights and measures. I have given the break-down of what we think the site will cost, the building, the grading and sidewalks, the supervision and so forth.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Where is it?


Alphonse Fournier: On the 14th of November the government-


Arthur Leroy Smith: That is a date, not the address.


Alphonse Fournier: I will give exactly what it is; lots 21, 22; block 106, plan C, section 15 on the northwest corner of First street east and Fifteenth avenue. That is the exact location where we are to purchase the site.


Arthur Leroy Smith: What I am wondering about is this: may I say this is within the constituency of the hon. member for Calgary East.


Alphonse Fournier: I noticed that.


Arthur Leroy Smith: It is not of my bailiwick. Recently the government has had a tremendous building turned over to it. By "tremendous" I mean it must be
two or three hundred feet long, four or five stories high and at least 100 feet in depth, which was occupied by military district 13; that is now turned back. I have noticed in the newspapers that certain government departments are moving into this building. It is an immense building. Has the minister made any sort of survey to find out whether this building could not easily accommodate a little thing like a weights and measures department without new construction at the corner of Fifteenth avenue and First street east?


Alphonse Fournier: The building the hon. member mentions is rented by National Defence. When they are through using that building they turn it over to War Assets Corporation, but Public Works has priority on these buildings which are turned over to War Assets Corporation. We have not heard that this building has as yet been vacated or released to War Assets Corporation. I am told by my officials that this building for weights and measures is a special sort of building which we could not transform into an office building erected for office space.


Arthur Leroy Smith: With respect,
I do not think the answer of the minister is quite good enough. Surely this government which owns buildings in the city of Calgary-
I do not care what department it is in-is not going to have War Assets Corporation sell it to someone if this same government has another department which can occupy it.


Alphonse Fournier: They will not do that if we need it, because it will have to be offered to Public Works.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You do need it. If the minister followed the newspapers recently he will find that a number of departments of government have already moved into this building to which I am referring. I do not know what weights and measures need. I know they require a weigh scale and certified weights and that sort of thing; but this is really a big place, about two or three times the size of this chamber, and there is a tremendous amount of space there. I am quite sure that the person who is going to sell the lot will enjoy it, but what I am trying to do is to suggest some sort of economy even in my own city. Most people ask for expenditures.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: This is not in your riding.


Arthur Leroy Smith: No, two blocks out.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Don't worry about that.
Supply-Public Works


Arthur Leroy Smith: What I am seeking to do is to find a bit of economy in the picture where the thing seems to be written plainly on the wall that you can use this accommodation for perhaps a number of other departments in that city.


Alphonse Fournier: The only answer I can give is to read the report of our resident architect in Calgary who advises us on these matters. He says:
I do not consider it possible under existing conditions to obtain space for the calibration service in an existing building. I recommend that a new building be provided in the central part of Calgary as near the customs building as possible for this service, and if necessary the electricity and gas inspection service as well.
I am further informed that the city is selling these lots I mentioned a moment ago for the amount of $1,375. I do not know; perhaps my hon. friend could advise me, but the architect is the only man upon whom I can rely as to the conditions and the kind of building that is needed. The request comes from the Department of Trade and Commerce to Public Works. They tell us what kind of building they will require, and the request is sent to the resident architect who ' makes a survey and advises the department as to what should be done. Perhaps he is all wrong; I do not know. Personally I think he is right, though he may be making a mistake. I do not know, however, that I can convince the Department of Trade and Commerce that they should try to turn over another building for the purpose for which they need this special building. The hon. member may know' more than I know about calibration and the inspection of electricity and gas, but my architect says that this is the place, not far away from the customs building, and that we need a special building for it.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Perhaps I can answer the questions one at a time. So far as distance is concerned, the building to which I refer is one block closer than the minister suggests. So far as the question of electricity and gas is concerned, there is equality. They are ^oth there. I will not quarrel with the architect, but does the architect whom the minister's department consults have charge of the building of which I am speaking?


Alphonse Fournier: I do not think so.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am quite sure he does not, because if he did he would not even suggest putting up a new building if there were space available in this splendid building I speak of. It was an old store taken over at the first of the war. This government 
spent over $100,000 in renovating it and it is a good building, and if the architect has not this building in mind there is no question about disputing his judgment if he never took it into consideration in arriving at that judgment. I am not criticizing him; but I am suggesting that, this other building being there and available, and affording space, the minister might at least reconsider the matter and we might save $28,000 or $25,000, or whatever it may be.


Alphonse Fournier: We would not save $28,000, because we would have to renovate or refix the space for the requirements in that building which the hon. member mentions, so that there would be some expenditure. Our resident architect in every district knows about every building, belonging to the government, even though such buildings may not be under public works control. In this instance, the hon. member mentions a building which our architect has never mentioned to headquarters, and we do not even know if the building belongs to the department or is rented property, or if it is still occupied and what they intend to do about it, while the needs of weights and measures seem to be pressing enough to proceed as soon as possible with this building.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Does the minister suggest that weights and measures need any special kind of construction?


Alphonse Fournier: Perhaps I had better read the letter from the Department of Trade and Commerce. The garage at 529 Tenth avenue west, Calgary, in which the calibration tank is at present installed, has been sold to the Consolidated Fruit Company. The letter from the Department of Trade and Commerce states:
Oil truck calibration is particularly important in the Calgary district owing to the proximity of the Turner valley oil fields, and if we are forced out of our present quarters it will be necessary to have a new location ready so that there will be no interruption in this important public service.
I shall be pleased if you will ask your resident architect to check on this situation and make what arrangement is considered necessary. At the same time I would suggest that some consideration be given to providing a separate building which will provide calibrating space and office quarters. Tank calibration requires extra head room and only in a few buildings is this necessary height available. In Edmonton this problem was solved by putting up our own building.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The calibration can be done anywhere in the world.


William Earl Rowe: Pretty easy money.

Supply-Public Works


Douglas Scott Harkness: I notice this is a revote of $25,500, which is $5,500 less than this particular vote. Does that mean that you have already started certain construction on this, and have possibly bought the site, dug the pit where your weigh scales will go, or something along that line? The actual increase is $4,000; but is the difference of $5,500 due to increased cost, or what is the explanation?


Alphonse Fournier: Last year we
voted $27,000. That was for 1946^7. This year we are asking for $31,000. The $25,500 is the difference between the $1,500 to pay for the site and the $27,000 we obtained last year.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is to say, you
bought the site last year.


Alphonse Fournier: When these
estimates were prepared in October last year we were negotiating with the city of Calgary for the site I mentioned a moment ago, and we expected to make that payment during the fiscal year ending March this year. That payment has been made. We spent $1,452.25 on the site. This year we expect to need the difference of $25,500.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This $4,000 difference
is due to estimated increased cost of building? Mr. FOURNIER (Hull): That is right.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I come to the next
item, Calgary office building, revote of $100,000. What is that building? Where will it be erected and what is the purpose of it?


Alphonse Fournier: This is the note I have on the question. This is required towards the purchase of an addition to the government-owned site to provide adequate accommodation for the veterans affairs department and the unemployment insurance commission. It is proposed to erect a four-storey structure 65 feet by 200 feet, with basement and concrete foundations, masonry walls, reinforced concrete frame, brick facing, stone trim, felt and gravel roofing. It is proposed to erect the building on the government-owned site located at the north west corner of fourth street west and Sixth avenue west. This property comprises lots IS, 19 and 20 and has frontages of 130'5" on Fourth street west, and 92'9" on Sixth avenue west. The district resident architect recommends that adjoining lots, 21 and 22, located on Sixth avenue west be acquired. These lots are owned by Mrs. Marion Akins and have been valued at approximately $22,000.	,


Douglas Scott Harkness: What is the location of lots?


Alphonse Fournier: It is on lots 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22, northwest corner of Fourth street west and Sixth avenue west.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Before we finish with that, there is something I wish to get clear. The government-owned site which the minister speaks of at Fourth street west and Sixth avenue west is, I presume, the site upon which the courthouse is placed in Calgary and the old northwest mounted police barracks, which it has been rumoured for some time were going to be torn down. This building, I presume, is to be erected partly on the site formerly occupied by the old northwest mounted police barracks, including certain other lots there. This northwest corner of Fourth street west and Sixth avenue would be across the street from that. Do I understand that there are to be two buildings here?


Alphonse Fournier: It is an addition to the site or to the building we have here in Calgary. We are purchasing lots adjoining the property we now have. We are preparing or trying to prepare plans and specifications for that addition, in which to put the offices of the departments I have just named.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not quite understand this, because I understood the minister to say that this property would be erected at the corner of Fourth street west and Sixth avenue. As I say, that is the site of the old northwest mounted police barracks. Then they were to buy additional property on the northwest corner. But that is across the street. That is why I was wondering whether there were to be two buildings.


Alphonse Fournier: I will read over the description. The hon. member certainly knows more about Calgary than I do. Here is the site for this proposed new addition to the building. It is proposed to erect the building on the government-owned site located at the northwest corner of Fourth street west and Sixth avenue west. This property comprises lots 18, 19 and 20 and has frontages of so much on Fourth street west and a frontage on Sixth avenue west. The district resident architect recommends that adjoining lots 21 and 22 located on Sixth avenue west be acquired. These lots are owned by Mrs. So-and-so and are valued at so much.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I must beg the minister's pardon. I understood that the site he was talking about was the site of the old northwest mounted police barracks, but the government already owns land across the street.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
Supply-Public Works


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is one other item I should like to ask about, namely "Coutts- buildings for customs and immigration (revote $126,000)." The present estimate is $140,000, an increase of $14,000. I am sorry that the money which was voted for this last year was not expended last year. I should like to assure you, Mr. Chairman, andi the committee that the customs building at Coutts is a bad advertisement for Canada. On the United States side of the border there is a good customs house and a good general set-up of government buildings which is quite impressive. The United States visitor, leaving that set-up and coming across the border into Canada at Coutts, is faced by a poor-looking old building which, I am sure, immediately gives him the impression that he is coming to a poor country which does not amount to much. Last year I was quite pleased when this vote went through for the erection of a new customs building at Coutts. When I came to Ottawa for the present session of parliament, I came by automobile and passed through Coutts on my way. I was disappointed to find that no building had taken place there during the previous summer; and the customs inspector at Coutts, to whom I spoke for some time, understood that nothing would be done until this spring at the earliest. I think the sooner the government makes use of the money which was voted for this item to erect a building on that site which will be a credit to Canada and will favourably impress people coming into this country through that port of entry, the better off we shall be. If construction has not already been started. I should like to urge strongly that it be started immediately, so that we may get reasonably well along before the present construction year has elapsed.


Alphonse Fournier: I understand that work is well advanced on the plans and specifications for this building. As soon as they are completed, we shall ask for tenders. We ourselves wish to proceed, because the reports we have concerning the actual buildings there indicate that they are not any credit to our country.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Definitely not.


Alphonse Fournier: We are doing the best we can to proceed this year.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I just understood the minister to say that they are well along with plans and specifications. But the money for this building was voted last year. Surely the plans and specifications were prepared a year ago after 
the money was voted. Surely we are not at that stage now, a year after the money for this particular building was provided for-


Alphonse Fournier: If the hon. member will permit me to interject, this money was voted for the first time at the end of August last year.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


Alphonse Fournier: I explained when my estimates first came up, on the general item, that if we had not proceeded with many of these projects it was on account of lack of staff in my office, and lack of material and man-power. I dealt with that the other day. But this is one of the most pressing projects, and we admit that. We could not complete the plans in the fiscal year ended in March this year; we are still working on them. I am informed that in the not too far distant future we shall call for tenders. Proceeding with the putting up of buildings nowadays is perhaps a little more difficult than it was in normal times before the war. I do not recall whether the hon. member was in the house on Friday and Monday night when my estimates came up.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


Alphonse Fournier: At that time I tried to give the committee the position of the department as to new construction.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I must say that I am very much disappointed to hear that this building, which the minister admits is a most pressing affair, has not yet had the plans and specifications for it completed. Can the minister indicate to the committee whether it will be started this year? I do not mean the plans and specifications; I mean the actual construction.


Alphonse Fournier: We hope to ask for tenders as soon as these plans and specifications are prepared. We will lose no time in asking for tenders, and we just express the pious hope that somebody will tender for this job.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to point out that when the government really wish to get things done, it is not a matter of waiting around for people to make tenders and so forth. They get to work and get something done. The best illustration of that was what occurred in this country during the war. When we had to get things built, we got them built.
I think the same thing applies to an affair of this sort. If the government are seized of the necessity of getting a thing built, they will get it built. They will get construction started

Supply-Public Works
and do it rapidly. But as long as they are fiddling around waiting for somebody to draw up plans and specifications, and then waiting for somebody to put in a tender, I doubt whether we shall ever get the building.


Alphonse Fournier: Is it the suggestion of the hon. member that we go ahead and put up this building at all costs?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The suggestion I am making is that the Department of Public Works should, in carrying out their duties, show that degree of energy which a department of this dominion should show, instead of playing around with the job.


Alphonse Fournier: I do not often play around with a job. Some months from now, when the hon. member comes to read over what he has just said about the procedure the Department of Public Works should follow, I think he may be sorry for suggesting that method of procedure. In our department since confederation we have established some rules of procedure for the protection of public money, and the best way which has been devised, under every government, has been to prepare plans and specifications, call for tenders, and give contracts to the lowest bidders. If the hon. member thinks that in normal times we should return to the procedure we followed in war time-well, if that were done I do not know whether the government to which I belong would wish to occupy these benches. You cannot run this department by trying to have work done at all costs. You have to get the best for the money the people are paying into the coffers of the country. I know of no other way of doing the work.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I was not suggesting that this should be done at all costs. I was suggesting that a sufficient amount of energy should be put behind it to get it done. To my knowledge, this thing has been projected at least since 1938, and it may have been projected for many years before that. It is now nine years later; and I realize, of course, that a war has intervened. But surely when the thing was projected as long as nine years ago the government would have plans and specifications, so that when parliament voted money last year they could go ahead with it; that is, if they had enough energy, initiative and good organization to run the public works of this country in a way which, in my opinion, they should be run.
Mr. FOURNIER (Hull); That is a matter of opinion. Let me tell the hon. member that in the last five years I have been head of the
department the hon. member is the first one who has told me that my officials lack energy and foresight and that they have not done their work. I would call as witness nearly every member sitting opposite. They will * say that in my department they receive courteous attention and service and have had results when they have made requests. When the hon. member expresses his opinion about the running of the Department of Public Works I feel just a little sorry for those old servants we have had for many years in the department who do their utmost at all times.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In connection with what the minister has said-


William Ross Macdonald: Order, The hon. member for Red Deer has been endeavouring for the last fifteen minutes to speak. I do not want to cut off the discussion between the minister and the hon. member for Calgary East too abruptly, but in fairness to other hon. members I must say I believe they should be given an opportunity.


Mr. SHAW:: The only redeeming feature about getting up and down so often is that I secure exercise which I might not otherwise get. I appreciate very much, Mr. Chairman, your having recognized the fact that I have made an effort to get to my feet.
Speaking about public buildings and proposed construction when the general item was before the committee on June 20, the minister indicated that a great many projects had been urged upon him, and he also analysed certain problems confronting his department in this regard. I fully appreciate the problem with which the minister is confronted. However, as he is probably aware, conditions vary somewhat from area to area so far as available labour is concerned, and I believe that is also true with respect to materials.
So far as I can learn from a return brought down, the minister's supplementary estimates last year included a sum of $107,000 for the public work at Red Deer. That was later deleted, and I believe I appreciate the reason for that being done. The situation there is serious. I believe the Post Office Department has been successful in impressing upon the Minister of Public Works the urgent necessity of undertaking that project at the earliest possible moment. I find in the return that the deputy minister of public works did indicate to the deputy postmaster general that the item had been included last year but was subsequently deleted. He pointed out, however, that it would be given further consideration this year.
I am not going to take more time on the matter. If I were to try I believe I could
Supply-Public Works

paint a dismal picture respecting the situation there. I would urge upon the minister that, if at all possible, the appropriation be given favourable consideration this year and that steps be taken toward completion of the project. I believe it stands pretty much by itself as one of the most serious in Canada today.	,


Solon Earl Low: Has the minister received any request from the people at Fairview in the Peace River district for a new post office building?


Alphonse Fournier: I have probably received it, although I have not the communication with me. But, speaking generally, and also replying to the hon. member who has just spoken, may I point out that I believe there are three or four hundred requests for buildings throughout the country by different departments of government. Those buildings are held up because we and our advisers are convinced that we cannot proceed with them. There is no bad will about the matter, nor is there any discrimination. We are a service department, and we follow the recommendations and requests of all the other departments.
All hon. members could, I have no doubt, describe pitiful cases respecting space in their respective constituencies or towns. The minister himself is in the same position with respect to some public buildings. The work has been delayed because we know we shall not be able to proceed this year with those projects, and we do not feel we should have amounts put into the estimates uselessly.
Last year we did try that procedure, and I must admit that a large number of the votes this year are revotes of last year which could not be expended. Why should we pad the estimates this year when I know, and those who advise me know that we shall not expend the money or succeed in putting up those ouildings?
Just to see, for myself, last year I travelled this country from one end to the other, not because I did not rely upon the reports I had received from officials in my department in the different districts, but so that I could meet other people and see conditions. I do not mean that in one place we could not put up a building; but, as a general policy, we cannot proceed. With materials and labour available, it would be only proper that they should be directed to the construction of houses. Not more than three weeks ago I had a conference to see if we could, during the fall, proceed with some new works, but I am told that it still would not be feasible.


Solon Earl Low: I ask particularly about Fair-view because it is a fast-growing town in one

of the best farming districts in western Canada. It is going to be thickly populated1, and at the present time the post office is housed in the back part of an old and dilapidated rough-board building, with floors which have become so uneven because of the seepage of water that people can scarcely walk across them without tripping. The space in which to handle mail is most inadequate. The roof is leaking to a point *where I am satisfied the mails are endangered. I must point out the total inadequacy of the building to handle the work of the Post Office Department.
Just by way of contrast, let me say that in the town of Peace River is a first-class building. Let me congratulate the minister and his department upon maintaining at that point one of the finest public buildings I have seen in any western Canadian town. Not only is it well built, but it is extremely well looked after. It has the most up-to-date equipment, which is a splendid thing. I should like to impress upon the minister that if he cannot see his way clear to build a small well-equipped building in Fairview, he and his officials do something about renting some other place at which a post office could be located.


Alphonse Fournier: Or repair the
present building?


Solon Earl Low: 
Alphonse Fournier: That is the
amount required to pay the government's portion of sewer and water services for the post office and telegraph buildings, alterations to the post office drain and the installation of plumbing in the telegraph building.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I wanted to make it quite
clear when I spoke that I appreciate fully the problems confronting the minister, but I am concerned over this item having been included in the supplementary estimates and then deleted before they were presented to the house.


Alphonse Fournier: A request will
come to the Department of Public Works from the Post Office Department. We prepare either the main or supplementary estimates which go before treasury board and then before the government. The mere fact that a department recommends an expenditure does not mean that it will go through. These items are studied and brought before treasury board and government where the final decision is made.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I just want to emphasize
that the urgency of this project was recognized

Supply-Public Works
and I hope it will not be relegated to the bottom of the ladder when the time comes that the department can undertake these projects. As I say, both the Post Office Department and the Department of Public Works have recognized the urgency of this.


Alphonse Fournier: I want to be
fair. If it is a new building I cannot commit myself. I made the same answer to the hon. member's colleagues on the other side.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I am simply asking that at
some future time when conditions permit the construction of new buildings, this project, the importance of which has been recognized, be not relegated to a position at the bottom of the construction ladder. I hope it will be one of the first undertaken because the condition is quite serious. I am not asking for special consideration at the moment.


Mr. BENTLEY:: I wonder if I might have the indulgence of the committee to ask a simple, non-controversial question on item 290. I should like to ask if there is any provision in the vote for $75,000 for an addition to the post office in Swift Current?


Alphonse Fournier: This vote is
required for improvements and repairs in connection with dominion public buildings in Saskatchewan. It is not known in advance what repairs will be required. If Swift Current is in need of repairs I am sure the architect will make a report and the repairs will be made.


Mr. MOORE:: 
[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Architectural branch-
Construction, repairs and improvements of public buildings-British Columbia-
292. Chilliwack public building-addition (revote), $40,000.
Dominion public buildings-improvements and repairs, $150,000.	_
Douglas-buildings for customs and immigration (revote, $104,000), $120,000.
Hazelton-public building (revote), $21,400.
Kamloops public building-addition and alterations (revote), $36,000.
North Vancouver-postal station (revote), $50,000.	.
Vancouver examining warehouse-installation of elevator (revote), $25,000.
Vancouver-post office building site (revote), $250,000.
Vancouver public building-improvements and repairs, $5,000.
Victoria-public building (revote), $200,000.
William Head quarantine station-alterations, improvements and repairs (revote), $66,000.
Mr. FULTON:: Could the minister comment upon the revote for the public building at Kamloops? Can he say whether it is anticipated that the work will get under way this year?


Alphonse Fournier: The contract foi this addition and these alterations was awarded
Supply-Public Works

on March 5, 1947, to Bennett and White Construction Company, the amount being $41,600.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What does that cover?
What alterations and repairs are contemplated?


Alphonse Fournier: There is an addition to the existing building of a two-storey structure with a basement twenty-four feet, six inches by fifty-six feet, six inches; concrete foundation walls, masonry exterior walls, brick facing, stone trim.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Could no local firm be found to undertake that contract?


Alphonse Fournier: The tenders were publicly advertised in the papers and anybody had the right to tender. The lowest tenderer was Bennett and White Construction Company Limited.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Of Vancouver?


Alphonse Fournier: And Calgary. There was another bid from J. C. Taylor & Son for $49,396.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No preference is given to local firms?


Alphonse Fournier: Absolutely none. The tenders are publicly opened at a fixed hour and date, and there is an association called the Canadian Construction Association which has a representative sitting in the department when the tenders are opened to see just what takes place.


George Randolph Pearkes: With reference to the item, William Head quarantine station, alterations, improvements and repairs, $66,000 there is, as an adjunct of that quarantine station, a leper station on Bentinck island. Could the minister say whether any proportion of this $66,000 is to be spent on alterations, improvements and repairs to the buildings and establishments on that island?


Alphonse Fournier: A contract was let for repairs to the different buildings. An order in council was passed, April 24, 1947, granting authority to accept the tender of Canada Paint and Contracting Company at $66,894 for general repairs, painting, plumbing and heating installations at the quarantine station at William Head. Two bids were received, one from H. V. Jones at $69,628.27, and one from Canada Paint and Contracting Company at $66,984.
Among the works at Bentinck island are patients' cabins Nos. 1, 2 3, 4 and 5 and meat house No. 9, repairs and improvements, $3,350; nurses' residence, painting, improve-

ments to heating and repairs, $985; attendants' residence, improvements to plumbing, repairs and painting, $1,240.


George Randolph Pearkes: I suggest that, since there are only three patients there and since there have only been from two to three patients in that station in the last ten years, that is a very large amount of money to spend on such an establishment. There is another leper station in eastern Canada at Tracadie, where there are only seven lepers, and since the general maintenance of the leper station at William Head costs some $5,000 a year I suggest that this expenditure seems a lot for just three men. One is a Chinaman, one a Jap, and one is a white missionary who has just been sent there. If we are to spend money there it might be advisable to send the seven patients from eastern Canada out there, or if you are not going to do that, would it not be wise to move the three from this island and send them to Tracadie? But an expenditure such as is suggested is a lot of money to spend to look after three men.


Alphonse Fournier: I agree. But the hon. member understands that these repairs are being made at the request of the Department of National Health and Welfare. All we do is act as agents for the department. I think the remarks made by the hon. gentleman are very sensible. There are, I understand, only two of these leper stations in Canada, one in New Brunswick and the other on Bentinck island. Perhaps they could send these three patients on Bentinck island to the other leper station at Tracadie, where there are more than three patients.


George Randolph Pearkes: I do not mind whether you transfer the three to New Brunswick or transfer the seven to western Canada, but it does seem unnecessary to go ahead and spend this money for just three patients. I would suggest that the minister refer the matter back to the Department of National Health and Welfare.


Angus MacInnis: I would ask the minister for some information in regard to the $250,000 item for a post office site in Vancouver. Where is that site located?


Alphonse Fournier: There are three pages of the description of the site. I do not know whether the hon. member wishes to have that put on Hansard. We are proceeding with negotiations and, if my hon. friend wishes to have these pages tomorrow, I could send them to him. It is a list of all the properties and the value we put upon them.

Supply-Public Works


Angus MacInnis: I do not want to clutter the pages of Hansard with too much detail. Do I understand that the site has not yet been bought, but that negotiations are going on with respect to its purchase?


Alphonse Fournier: We know exactly where the site of the building is, but it comprises several properties. I have here a description of the lots, the properties on them and the value put on them.


Angus MacInnis: Has the minister the street location?


Alphonse Fournier: The lot numbers are: 1-3; 4-6; 7-8; 9-10; 11-12-13; 14; 15; 16; 17; 18; 19; lot 20 and the north part of lot 21; lots 27-28; lot 29 and the south half of lot 30; the north half of lots 30, 31, 32 and 33, 34, 35, 36; block 30, D.L. 541, bounded on the north by Pender street, on the east by Hornby street, on the south by Dunsmuir street, and on the west by Burrard street.


Angus MacInnis: Is the $250,000 a partial payment? I know it was $750,000 last year.


Alphonse Fournier: We did decrease this vote because we did not expect to expend more than $250,000 during this fiscal year on this purchase, and that is why we thought we would bring the vote down. We did not succeed in the first year in negotiating or expropriating the whole lot; we are working on this now, and we do not believe that we can expend more than the amount of $250,000.


Angus MacInnis: Has the minister any idea as to what the total cost of the property will be?


Alphonse Fournier: The assessment I know, which is $423,070.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Architectural branch-
Construction, repairs and improvements to public buildings-generally
[Stage Direction]
293. Dominion immigration buildings-repairs, improvements, etc., $45,000.
Douglas King Hazen: Has any provision been made to provide for an immigration building at the port of Saint John? Is there anything at all in these estimates or in the estimates that may be brought down later?


Alphonse Fournier: We are just considering the supplementary estimates, and I know that consideration is being given to the question of an immigration building for Saint John.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Architectural branch-
Construction, repairs and improvements to public buildings-generally- _
296. Flags for dominion buildings, $12,000.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: When the minister purchases new flags for dominion buildings to replace the old ones, what flag does he purchase and send out? Is it the union jack or the Canadian ensign.


An hon. MEMBER:: The Canadian flag.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: There is no such thing as a Canadian flag. We have not yet adopted a Canadian flag.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: The hon. member called it the Canadian ensign.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I am not asking the hon. member. I do not think he knows anything about it; I am asking the minister.


Alphonse Fournier: Actually we are buying the two flags, the union jack and the red ensign.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Does the minister give a particular location the choice of which flag they will have, whether they will have the union jack or the Canadian ensign?


Alphonse Fournier: We have, I believe, bought this year seventy-five per cent red ensigns and twenty-five -per cent union jacks.


Mr. WHITMAN:: Why?


Frank Exton Lennard: That is a very good question.


Alphonse Fournier: On September 5, 1945, an order in council was passed that the red ensign be put up on public buildings. We have continued buying the union jack, but we have bought more of the other, and we have sent out both to our public buildings. I believe some of them have asked for red ensigns and others for the union jack.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It is a matter of choice?


Alphonse Fournier: Personally I am not fighting over it. If somebody wishes the union jack I will tell my officials to send out a union jack. If they want the other one they will get the other one. That is my feeling.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The minister is a diplomat.


Frank Exton Lennard: Who has this choice?


Alphonse Fournier: If they ask for flags, and it happens that they do not like one, if they ask for the other they get it.


Frank Exton Lennard: So far as the public building in Dundas, Ontario, is concerned, which is
Supply-Public Works

a post office which has a caretaker and a postmaster, who will be the one who would request either the red ensign-


Alphonse Fournier: Probably the caretaker who flies the flag.


Frank Exton Lennard: I will inquire when I go home next week-end.


Alphonse Fournier: I cannot stop the hon. member from inquiring.


Frank Exton Lennard: I shall see that the correction is made in that case.


James Sinclair: I should like to direct one inquiry to the Minister of Public Works. He spoke about the red ensign. I take it that is the same flag which the hon. member for Royal rightly described as the Canadian ensign.


Alphonse Fournier: Yes, the red ensign. The Canadian ensign to me is the one that has the union jack in the corner and the coat of arms in the fly. That is the one to which I have reference.


James Sinclair: The Canadian ensign.


Frank Exton Lennard: The mutilated coat of arms.


John Alpheus Charlton: I understand that in my riding some officials in dominion buildings have had a letter from some department of government advising them that only the Canadian red ensign was to be flown from a dominion public building in that town. Is it true that an official letter has been sent out? Did the department send it out? Under whose direction was it sent out?


Alphonse Fournier: This is the policy of the government concerning the flying of the flag. The position of my officials was that they had an order in council which was passed in 1945 on the flying of the red ensign. The policy is as follows:
The flying of the red ensign as a flag distinctive of Canada, was authorized by an order in council P.C. 5888 on September 5, 1945. The red ensign has been flying on the parliament buildings since that date, and the Department of Public Works has gradually been substituting the red ensign for the union jack on public buildings as the supply of union jacks becomes exhausted, and the supply of red1 ensigns becomes available. This policy is in line with the decision made by parliament when a committee of both houses was set up in the first session of the present parliament.
During the duration of world war I by the order of the deputy minister dated 4th September, 1917, the flags were flown every day of the year from all public buildings in the dominion.
. After the conclusion of the war the continuation of this policy of flying the flags daily was 
taken up with the hon. the minister, dated the 18th July, 1919. The flags were ordered to be flown every day throughout the year.
This is the policy which guides the officials of my department.


John Alpheus Charlton: The minister just made the statement that it was left to some official in the public building which flag was to be chosen to fly.


Alphonse Fournier: Do not mistake what I said. When an official who flies the flag on a building where he is an official, asks the department for a union jack-


John Alpheus Charlton: He gets it?


Alphonse Fournier: I do not know of a case where it has been refused. If they want the other one they receive it. I do not know if I can do anything better than that.


John Alpheus Charlton: I am just trying to find out which is correct?


Alphonse Fournier: Which is which?


John Alpheus Charlton: Yes. I know of one official in my own riding who told me that they had been notified to fly only the Canadian red ensign.


Alphonse Fournier: Did the hon. member see the letter? We gave no instructions to force them to fly one flag or the other. I have read exactly what has taken place, and I want this on the record so that there will be no misunderstanding. I have read the policy to the committee. If the hon. member wishes to have one flag on the building in his home town and we receive that request they receive the flag they ask for. I am told that is what has been done by the officials.


John Alpheus Charlton: I am wondering who has the right to decide.


Alphonse Fournier: It is Public Works. I am the custodian of the flags of this country.


Frank Exton Lennard: I think that is a fair statement, and one that is acceptable so far as I am concerned. If a change is requested, will the other flag be sent along immediately.


Alphonse Fournier: Yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The other evening the minister said he would get me the figures.


Alphonse Fournier: Is the hon. member referring to the film board?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The eight buildings I spoke of.

Supply-Public Works


Alphonse Fournier: I am told that Mr. Boucher, the man in my department who attends to leases, is preparing that report. It is not ready tonight, but I will get it as soon as possible.


John Horne Blackmore: I wish to congratulate the minister on what he said regarding the flag. There are areas in this country that still love the union jack. I am glad that the minister has taken the attitude he has.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Architectural branch
[Stage Direction]
Construction, repairs and improvements of public buildings-generally
[Stage Direction]
299.	National printing bureau (revote, $100,000), $200,000.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: We are coming to the end of the architectural branch under public works, and I would point out to the minister that there is $4 million for temporary employment or assistance under this branch. Is there any way of getting a break-down of that amount?' I believe the exact amount is $3,900,000 for temporary assistance.


Alphonse Fournier: We went over that item the first night my estimates came up. I have not my book here, but in this department most of the employees are temporaries or what we call regulars or seasonal. They do not come under the Civil Service Act. All the prevailing-rates people, some two thousand charwomen, are not under the Civil Service Act, and that is for the maintenance of our public buildings, the salaries of these people taking most of one of these first items we discussed the other night.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Surely we ought to be able to get some break-down. Is it all temporaries in Ottawa, or is it in different localities wherever there is a public works branch?


Alphonse Fournier: In the first item of all, out of a total of $206,599 of salaries, $50,034 is paid to temporaries. Of salaries for maintenance and operation of dominion buildings in Ottawa, out of a total of $2,428,198, the salaries of temporary staffs amount to $1,932,551. If the hon. gentleman wishes to have the figures for maintenance of buildings outside Ottawa, out of total salaries of $2,994,060, the sum of SI,847,826 is for temporaries.


John Alpheus Charlton: On the details of services, at page 203 of the estimates, the minister has stated that part-time caretakers, charwomen. form a part of the extra-
Mr. FOURNIER (Hull) What is the number of the item?


John Alpheus Charlton: I am referring to the architectural branch, item 299, and I am followup what the member for Queens said. There is an amount of $20,473 on page 203 in connection with part-time caretakers, and yet the minister stated that was included-


Alphonse Fournier: So that we may understand each other, I should like to know what the hon. gentleman is referring to.


William Henry Golding: The item we are dealing with now is 299, a sum not exceeding $200,000 to be granted for public works, architectural branch, construction, repairs and improvements of public buildings, generally, national printing bureau, revote, $100,000.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is all included under the architectural branch and the details are on page 203. There are forty-one caretakers part-time with a total of $20,473, and yet the minister says that temporary assistance included part-time caretakers. It is listed as part-time beside the temporary assistance.


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. gentleman is going back to what we discussed last Friday night. This is under item 280 or 281.
I can go back over all my estimates-


William Henry Golding: I suggest that the minister read the items under 299 and the hon. member will know what comes under it.


John Alpheus Charlton: The item of temporary assistance comes up in connection with every vote and we can bring it up on every item.


Alphonse Fournier: If the hon. gentleman will open his book of estimates and look at page 33, item 281, he will find there maintenance and operation of dominion public buildings and grounds, and so forth.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is in Ottawa. Tire item I refer to is the architectural branch outside Ottawa.


Alphonse Fournier: That is item 282, which was carried on Friday night. Page 202 gives the details of all the civil servants and employees for maintenance of these buildings outside Ottawa.


William Henry Golding: Shall the item carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Architectural branch-
Construction, repairs and improvements of public buildings-generally-
300.	Public buildings generally-repairs. a'" terations, fittings and improvements, $500,900.
Mr BOUCHER:: Can the minister explain the increase from S300.000 to S500.000?
Supply-Public Works


Alphonse Fournier: It is to meet the very request made by the hon. member for Carleton on Friday night, that we put a little more paint on and clean up the buildings in Ottawa. We thought we would increase the amount.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Architectural branch-
Construction, repairs and improvement of public buildings-generally-
301.	Veterans' hospitals-repairs, improvements and alterations, $175,000.
Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: What hospitals are
included here?


Alphonse Fournier: Halifax, N,S Camp Hill, Veterans Home, oamt John,	Lancaster Hospital
Quebec, P.Q., Savard Park Hospital Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Ste. Anne's Hospital. Ottawa, Ont., Health Centre.
Kingston, Ont., Hospital.
Peterborough, Out.. T.B. Hospital Toronto, Ont., Christie Street Hospital. London, Ont.. Westminster Hospital Winnipeg, Man., Deer Lodge Hospital. Begina, Sask., Veterans Home, Health Centre, saskatoon, Bask., Hospital.
Calgary, Alta., Col. Belcher Hospital Vancouver B.C.. Shaughnessy Hospital. Victoria, B.C., Hospital, Convalescent.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister mentioned a hospital in Peterborough. It was burned down last December.


Alphonse Fournier: Yes. I understand that it was burned down last vear.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: And I am very sorry for it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Architectural branchpuS^fe™ and impr0TCm^s of Generally-
302 London, England-Clerk's table for the new British House of Commons, $7,500.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: Will the minister explain this item? It seems to be something new.


Alphonse Fournier: Yes. This amount is to provide for the purchase of the necessary material for the construction of a Clerk's table for the new British House of Commons. The table will be constructed of Canadian hardwood and will be a gift from Canada toward the restoration of the British House of Commons. Canada is giving the Clerk's table. I understand that Australia is giving the Speaker's chair and that New Zealand is giving the chairs for the Clerk's table.


John Lambert Gibson: Will there be any British Columbia wood in that table? I hope so.


Douglas King Hazen: Who designed the table?


Alphonse Fournier: I think it will be designed by somebody overseas. They will find the design.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: We will pay for it. Item agreed to.
Engineering branch-
SOS. Branch administration, $259,777.


John Alpheus Charlton: Can we get a breakdown of this item of $53,062 for temporary assistance?


Alphonse Fournier: That is the engineering branch. Permanent salaries, 8169,095; temporary assistance, $53,062.


John Alpheus Charlton: What does that consist of?


Alphonse Fournier: It consists of fifty-eight permanent civil servants who are working in the engineering branch of the head office.


John Alpheus Charlton: Permanent engineers? Mr. FOURNIER (Hull): Fifty-eight permanent engineers or staff in the engineering branch in Ottawa. We pay those gentlemen $169,095. We have thirty-three temporary employees, who are civil servants also, and they receive $53,062.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Engineering branch-
SOI,. Engineering, including salaries of engineers, clerks, etc., $680,753.
Mr. ARCHIBALD:: I do not know whether I shall be_ in order, but I think the point I wish to bring up would come under engineering. It has to do with a survey crew to find out just what is around on the water-front in the Bella Coola valley. Seemingly the original property was owned by the Hudson's Bay Company. They ihad possession of the foreshore rights which are, as I understand it, different from what they are in most places. There is some confusion with regard to who owns the property. For example, in bringing cattle down from the Williams lake country, the people do not know whether they are going over public or private property, when it comes to loading the cattle off government docks. The people would like to have a new survey. The river is filled up at the mouth, at tidewater, and the picture is confused at the present time. It would be a great service to these people if a new survey were made and clear-cut lines were drawn.


Alphonse Fournier: I will give instructions to the engineer on the coast to make a survey and report.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Privilege-Mr. Fleming
Dredging-
306. Maritime provinces, $819,798.
Mr. MeLURE: Is the dredging which was requested for the fishermen in Queens county included in this item? Last year and the year before, the matter was brought to this department, and the fishermen there were asking to have Harris bay or Rustico bay dredged out so that they could bring their boats from the harbour up to the head of the lake. It has not been dredged since 1933. We can let the item stand if the information is obtained.
Alphonse Fournier: The hon. member is talking of Rustico?
Mr. MeLURE: Dredging in Prince Edward Island. One of the items was in Queens county, dredging for the fishermen at Rustico bay.	.


Alphonse Fournier: Out of this general vote we will certainly do dredging at Wood island, Queens, $45,500.
Mr. MeLURE:	That is for the ferry.
Georgetown railway wharf, 3,600 feet square measure; that is in Kings county; Beach Point, Summerside, Victoria.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Eleven o'clock.
Mr. MeLURE: Let the item stand.


Alphonse Fournier: For Rustico,
Queens, I have not the measurement, but some dredging is being done there.


William Henry Golding: Shall the item carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Stand.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is $22,000,000 passed tonight.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, June 26, 1947