1949-12-02

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. Breithaupt.


[Stage Direction]
Hen. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, it was announced last night that after the third reading of Bill No. 195 the next order of business would be Bill No. 145, respecting the acquisition of the Temiscouata railway. I was under the impression yesterday that that bill had been reported from committee, but as a matter of fact it was reported only a moment ago. If the house will give unanimous consent, I move, seconded by the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Gibson):
That Bill No. 145, an act respecting the acquisition of the Temiscouata railway, be considered in committee of the whole this day, and that standing order 21 be suspended in relation thereto.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), and again today the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher), have asked or given notice of questions concerning the position of the Canada-United States bilateral air agreement. There has been some discussion of it in the house and outside the house, and in view of its importance I feel that perhaps a statement should be made at this time.
The bilateral air agreement entered into between Canada and the United States in June of 1949 is a continuation of the original air agreement, with some changes. Among the new features three United States air carriers were granted traffic rights at Gander on the north Atlantic route and have been exercising those traffic rights under temporary permit pending action on their applications for regular foreign carrier licences from the
air transport board. The applications of two of these carriers, Transworld Air Lines and American Overseas Air Lines, were approved by the board on December 1, and yesterday licences were signed accordingly. The application of the third carrier, Pan-American, has been approved in principle, and the licence will be signed on receipt of certain minor amendments which that carrier has indicated it is sending forward.
The United States government was also granted traffic rights at Edmonton on two routes, the first a transborder route from Montana, and the second a through route from the United States to the Orient. Applications have been received from Western Air Lines and from Northwest Air Lines respectively for licences for these routes. It is expected that these applications will be dealt with in the relatively near future.
On the Canadian side, in connection with the new routes granted to the Canadian government, the United States government has issued a permit to Canadian Pacific Air Lines for the exercise of traffic rights in Hawaii on its route to Australia. The Trans-Canada Air Lines application for traffic rights in Florida on its Caribbean route is now being heard by the United States authorities, and will, it is expected, be dealt with within the next few weeks.
On the third new route granted to Canada between Montreal and New York, Colonial Air Lines has opposed an application to the United States authorities for a permit and has succeeded in action in the United States courts which prevents the United States authorities from proceeding with a permit for Trans-Canada Air Lines.
That is what brought about the issue of the show-cause order which was given yesterday by the air transport board, and for which the hearing will be held on December 12. Colonial Air Lines will at that time be given full opportunity to indicate on what grounds it believes its permit from the air transport board for the service between Montreal and New York should be continued.
I should like to point out that this order of the board is one between the air transport board and Colonial Air Lines, related to the permit issued by the board. The actions or policy of the United States government are not involved, and the Canadian authorities are fully satisfied that the United States authorities have proceeded in good faith in
2582	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry relation to the bilateral agreement between the two countries. It does not involve any question of intergovernmental relations in the field of civil aviation between Canada and the United States, which have always been on a close friendly and co-operative basis.


Mr. Thatcher:: Did the minister say that permanent rights have been granted by Canada before the Americans carry out their part of the agreement?


Lionel Chevrier: Permanent rights were
granted to the two companies I mentioned, Transworld and American Air Lines; and permanent rights have also been granted to Canadian Pacific Air Lines and, I am informed, are on the point of being granted to T.C.A. on its Caribbean route, so far as our rights are concerned.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Can the
Prime Minister indicate to the house what will be the agenda for the forthcoming dominion-provincial conference in January?
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): There has been no agenda prepared. The purpose of the invitations sent to the premiers of the provinces was to meet with us to discuss the possibility of agreeing on a satisfactory method of amendment in Canada by Canadian authorities of such parts of the constitution as cannot be amended by the provincial legislatures or by the dominion parliament alone.



DOUKHOBORS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, based upon a telegram I have received from the officers of the railway labour organization at Nelson, to the effect that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is being notified that until such time as suitable steps are taken to ensure the safety of men engaged in the operation of trains under threat of Doukhobor bombing-


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the hon. member should read the telegram; he should ask his question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In view of the situation that exists in that area at this time, can the minister assure the house that the federal government will extend all possible co-operation to


the provincial government for the protection of these railway workers and other citizens?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I think that in order to convey a correct impression to the house I should give an answer which is perhaps a little longer than is usual in these cases.
The constitutional responsibility for the enforcement of law and order in any province is entirely that of the provincial government. This responsibility has always been recognized by the provinces. It was so recognized by the province of Saskatchewan when dealing with the unlawful actions of Douk-hobors in that province.
We have been at all times and are now desirous of co-operating in any way we can, so long as it is distinctly understood by everyone concerned that in doing so we are not assuming responsibility where we have no power. We do not want to be placed in any such position. We are extending our co-operation purely as a result of a desire on our part to be as helpful as we possibly can to the British Columbia government and to Canadian citizens in British Columbia.
Early in the present year we sent to British Columbia, at the request of the attorney general of that province, some twenty members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to deal with the situation existing there at that time.
With regard to these latest atrocities in British Columbia, we have been asked by the attorney general of British Columbia, and latterly by the premier of that province, to co-operate. We have done so, and we appointed former Deputy Commissioner Meade, of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who is now on superannuation but who knows more about this problem than any other man in the force, to confer with Commissioner Shirras, of the British Columbia provincial police, as to the further steps that might be taken to meet the situation outlined in the hon. member's question.



CITY OF OTTAWA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. Church (Broadview):: I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works what action will be taken in connection with the question I asked the other day about the construction of shelters at bus stops in Ottawa.


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: The hon. member asked if the department or the government had written

Resources and Development
to the city of Ottawa about the building of shelters at bus terminals, and according to our flies the answer had to be no. That was the only answer I could give, because I did not want to leave the impression that we had communicated with the city.
I am informed that this is a matter under the authority of the city of Ottawa, not the federal government. We are ready to cooperate in the putting up of these shelters, but 1 could not commit the government to do things in Ottawa which do not come under our jurisdiction.


Thomas Langton Church: I suggested that you forward my question to the civic authorities and the Ottawa Transportation Commission.



SURPLUS CROWN ASSETS ACT


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: the third reading of Bill No. 195, to amend the Surplus Crown Assets Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



TEMISCOUATA RAILWAY


Lionel Chevrier: that the house go into committee on Bill No. 145, respecting the acquisition of the Temiscouata railway.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 211, respecting the Department of Resources and Development.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, there is one matter in relation to this bill which it may be difficult to deal with under a strict interpretation of the rules, because it involves a reference to another bill. I ask your indulgence, sir, that I may point out what appears
to me to be a limiting aspect of this measure, the purpose of which is to set up a Department of Resources and Development.
The bill defines the duties and powers of the minister, and the scope of the activities of the department. Sections 5 and 6 prescribe the broad application of the act. Section 5 relates to the development of forest resources, irrigation projects, national parks, the archaeology, ethnology and fauna and flora of Canada, as well as tourist information and services, housing and the trans-Canada highway. Section 6 provides that the minister shall have the control and management of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory, and of crown lands.
There is a similar bill to create a Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. Already something has been said about the setting up of additional departments, and it was argued on the resolution stage that it is not desirable to increase departments simply for the purpose of finding a place for another minister. It is not sufficient to let the matter stand there, because if another department and another minister are needed for the business of Canada, then all members should certainly support a bill which is put forward for that purpose. I suggest that the creation of these two departments is likely to lead to a certain measure of inefficiency and wholly unnecessary duplication, as well as a loss of effort, which is the best possible reason for considering the advisability of the functions of the two departments being incorporated in the department which might then be properly called the Department of Resources and Development.
After all, mines, and technical surveys of our mining or other areas, definitely have to do with our resources, and most important resources. There is no sound reason for separating mining from the Department of Resources and Development, which is to have incorporated in its title the appropriate word "development", because many of the functions of the officials and civil servants attached to the two departments must necessarily be carried out in the same area and be based upon the same type of knowledge. Officials and civil servants who are called upon to go into the Northwest Territories, into the northern areas of Canada from one end of the country to the other, or into the forest and lake areas where mines are found and where technical surveys will be carried out, will be covering precisely the same ground. I submit that the creation of these two departments, instead of being a move toward efficiency, is a definite move towards duplication and is a waste of effort.

Resources and Development
My comments would not have the same validity if the government were charged with the responsibility for the development of resources; but it is not. It has a broad supervisory relationship to all resources, whether they be mines, forests or anything else. Under our constitution as it stands today, and as I believe it will continue to stand, the development of resources is exclusively a provincial responsibility. Over the years most important work from a technical point of view has been done in connection with mining, forestry and other resources by federal government officials, and it has been of great assistance to the provincial departments in carrying out their responsibilities. There is every reason why a province charged with the responsibility of developing mines needs a department dealing exclusively with that activity, because they need field men, men with highly skilled background, who are able to assist in the development of the mines of their own areas.
In the case of forests the provinces, having exclusive responsibility for the actual development thereof, must have separate departments to deal with an undertaking so large in scope. Over the years they have built up highly skilled staffs which deal efficiently with these problems. One of the things we should be on guard against is the setting up of departments which bit by bit, human nature being what it is, will seek to acquire responsibilities which only create unnecessary duplication, not only between provincial and dominion departments, but also between departments of the dominion government itself.
I submit there is not a single activity in the two bills setting up the Department of Resources and Development and the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys which could not be handled much more efficiently by one minister, who could make full use of his staff so that trained men going down the Mackenzie, to the Hudson bay area, Ungava or any other part of the Canadian northland, would be able to carry out the duties that involve co-operation with provincial authorities without the necessity of another man being sent back to cover precisely the same ground hundreds and in some cases thousands of miles from the office in Ottawa.
Let us see exactly what the function of the dominion government is as to mines. So far as the dominion government is concerned, the most important thing is what it does not do, rather than what it does. It is infinitely more important that the dominion government avoid any limitation of mining development by unbalanced or excessive taxation which has no regard for the fact that mineral

resources are a wasting asset. It is much more important that there be no restrictions on the free market for mineral products, that there be no control which limits this highly speculative and challenging type of development, than it is to set up a new group of officials who will find new reasons for making it more difficult to carry out this adventurous but extremely important task. The duties properly related to the department of mines are such that they can be successfully carried out by a minister who is dealing with the whole broad picture of resources in Canada.
Surely we must look at this matter from the practical point of view. A minister is charged with responsibility; he has a deputy minister, his officials, his technical staff, and other employees. A minister of resources has before him a map showing all the rich resources of this vast country. How much better it is that one minister examine that map, so that if he is sending a group of individuals to some distant point, another minister in another department, who is looking at another map showing our resources, will not be sending another group to examine the same problems in the same area.
Every hon. member here will recall the broad outline of the report of that great statesman in the United States, Mr. Herbert Hoover, when he examined the governmental structure in the United States. Significantly enough, he was a well-known Republican and was appointed by a Democratic president to carry out this survey, because of his wide experience in the administrative problems of government. This commission under Mr. Hoover found almost incredible duplications of service. His report is filled with the record of officials going out to do similar jobs in the same areas. It indicated the possibility of saving, not millions but billions, in the over-all administration of the United States government. We have before us the kind of thing in respect to which a commission, or a committee of this house, examining the administration a year or five years from now, would say:	These two
departments never should have been separated. Any commission examining this from the point of view of administrative efficiency and simplicity would say that the department has not jurisdiction over the actual development of the resources. It has the responsibility of bringing together the federal government and the provinces in joint efforts in their common fields of interest. For example, in the case of highways, it has the responsibility of passing enabling legislation under which broad agreements can be reached in respect to activities that cross provincial boundaries. It would be said also that there was a measure

dealing with forest resources, under which the provinces could be brought together to co-operate in research, in forest protection, and in fire prevention.
I feel sure that any commission examining the structure of government a year or ten years from now would say that this is wrong from the point of view of administrative efficiency. I am not going to move an amendment, because the government must assume the responsibility for the definition of the administrative tasks that are to be performed. Unless the Prime Minister is convinced that the contention is sound, and that he should act upon it, no amendment will produce any further result than the argument that is put forward. This is not a case in which an amendment should be proposed simply for the purpose of having the views of the members recorded, which is the usual purpose of an amendment when it is recognized that it cannot be sustained.
In all earnestness, I urge that these bills be allowed to stand. The bill now before us should be amended by incorporating in it the powers included in the act respecting the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. The addition of one or two sections to this bill will give to this proposed new department the wide supervision of all resources that the name, mines and technical surveys, includes. We would then have one businesslike, efficient department under a minister who could have charge of the resources of this country; and, with the imagination of a man with feeling for Canada, he would be able to make the most effective use of the civil servants working under him. If this is not done, let us all recognize the fact that the two departments will continue to increase in numbers and in the extent of their authority. From time to time groups of people from these two departments will be meeting at Aklavik or at the head of Hamilton inlet and one will say to the other: Well, boys, we did not know you were here; what a lucky chance that we have met! They will ask each other what they are doing, and they will find they are each doing precisely the same thing.
I urge upon the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, that he realize what any commission would do if it examined this measure. Let us deal with this now instead of at some later time.


Thomas Langton Church: I wish to call the attention of the minister to the duties, powers, and functions provided for in this bill. It is the most important bill we have had before parliament for some time. So far
Resources and Development as the parliament of Canada is concerned, its jurisdiction is found in these various subsections to which reference has been made.
There is no doubt that in this country we have the greatest natural resources of any country in the world, and they are much coveted by others. The wealth of our forest resources is untold. Future generations will criticize this parliament if immediate steps are not taken to preserve the heritage we have in the forests. I agree with the suggestions my leader has made in this connection. It is linked up with the tourist trade. Many forest fires are caused by careless people. We should realize that these fires are destroying the by-products of wood and interfering with employment. The minister is right in utilizing paratroopers in fighting forest fires.
Speaking of irrigation and the development of water power, since I first entered this house I have always contended that Canada should have a national policy in this regard. We are one of the richest countries in the world in potential hydroelectric power. It is estimated that 45 million horsepower is available, and only about one-seventh of it has been developed, part of which is only seasonal. For many years we have been hearing about irrigation projects. I am sorry to say that little has been done in that regard, on either the prairies or in other parts of Canada. The development of irrigation is only in its infancy.
For many years I have suggested that there should be a national park in Ontario, linking up the crown property on the Ottawa river, the Rideau lakes, the St. Lawrence river, the Trent canal to the Severn river, around Muskoka, and the lake of Bays, the Parry Sound district and Georgian bay, up to the Maganatawan river, and through new Ontario to the head of the lakes. These are all properties held by the crown in the right of the dominion or the right of the province. There is no reason why Ontario should not get a share of these parks. At the moment there is a small park near the St. Lawrence, and another up on Pelee island; but there is really no national park in Ontario. This results in the loss of a great deal of the tourist trade. I believe the time has come when, without expense to the country, we could link up the crown properties I have suggested around the great lakes and inland waterways of the province of Ontario. A hotel system could be developed along with it, and Canada could be made something like Switzerland. There would be winter sports and all that sort of thing. It would mean a great deal of business, in winter and summer alike, to the people in this country.
2586	HOUSE OF
Resources and Development
Mention has been made of tourist information and services. We have received only a small part of the wealth which we should receive from a proper development of the tourist trade and kindred services. For a great many years this country has not received proper advertising along those lines.
In connection with housing, I am sorry there is no cheap land in Toronto. There used to be a Toronto district including Peel, Ontario, and York counties. Land was available at $6 per foot within the city limits, and now it is as high as $65 a foot. There is not even land available for people to build houses under the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation schemes. There is no steam suburban service such as Montreal has. I shall not go into that in detail this morning, but it is not a luxury; it is an economic necessity. When you find there is only one train a day out of some of those places in York county, and without commutation service, then it is another matter. Western Ontario, and especially the Niagara district, is suffering untold loss owing to the choked and cramped railway facilities available. We seem to be spending a great deal of money on our United States affiliation of the Canadian National, but not within Canada.
I shall not refer to the trans-Canada highway bill this morning, but I believe it will have to be read in conjunction with this particular bill. The other morning I was glad to hear the minister say that as pioneers in the good roads movement the provinces and municipalities which have gone ahead with this work will be recompensed.
I commend to the house the general principle of this bill. We have a great asset in our natural resources, and with the duties, powers and functions the minister now has, we should be able to start to develop them.


Mr. J. A. Bradette (Cochrane):: I should like to say a few words with respect to the remarks made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). His objection to this bill is based upon what might be called the overlapping of departmental activities as between the federal and provincial governments. So far as my own section of the country is concerned, which is highly mineralized, the people are satisfied with the government policy implied in this bill. I believe the same thing can be said of the mine owners. There is no doubt that in a federated state one must look for some amount of overlapping. No one would say that because we have a minister of agriculture in each of the provinces, the Department of Agriculture at Ottawa should be abolished. The same thing applies to mining.


I do not believe the leader of the opposition would say that there has been overlapping between the central government and the province of Ontario so far as mining is concerned. There is no doubt that the national research bureau, as well as other departments of the government-


George Alexander Drew: I do not want to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but, to keep the record straight, I most emphatically state that there has been duplication.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: No doubt there has been, but that is something we must expect in a federated state. No one would say that because there is some duplication in a provincial department, the federal department should be abolished; that is the point I am making. I was going to say that even the department of mines in Toronto-and I know whereof I speak-has benefited from research that has been undertaken by the central government; and this applies to several other activities. The same applies to forestry. It is true that the Northwest Territories have not the forest resources that we have in Ontario, but there is no doubt that the department of forestry has developed information which is useful in all parts of Canada.
I know something about the necessity for setting up this department, and I can say that it is a step in the right direction. The mining interests in Canada are satisfied with the proposal that has been put forward. I have not the time to present the briefs and recommendations that have been placed before me during the last ten years, urging the federal government to establish a special department for mining on account of its great importance in our economy. The leader of the opposition stated the position correctly when he said there was a mutual interest in the federal and provincial aspects of mining.
A few years ago, when the Canadian dollar was brought to parity, there was an immediate request from the gold mine owners who were primarily interested. I received dozens of telegrams and telephone calls.stating that the action of the government would harm the production of gold in Canada, and that some remedial measures should be taken. The department of mining is a necessary department, and a proper one for the federal government to administer. In common with the leader of the opposition, I do not believe in extravagance. Surely we do not need a Hoover commission in Canada; our situation is not comparable with that which prevails in the United States. There may be some departments that are overstaffed, but, so far as I am aware, there are very few of them.
I believe there is a method of liaison among all these departments and the provincial

departments. For instance, there is the Department of Justice and the Department of the Secretary of State. They fulfil a purpose which has to do with the application of justice in Canada. But who will say there is overlapping in these departments?
I am voicing the sentiment of my section of Ontario when I say that I am entirely in agreement with the formation of the three new departments. Here and now I want to compliment this administration upon forming the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. They will have their hands full if they want to look after the northern part of our country and the mining interests of Canada as a whole. The activities which will be undertaken in the future by these new departments will undoubtedly prove to be of great benefit in the development of our natural resources on a national scale.


Mr. G. M. Murray (Cariboo):: On behalf of the people of northern British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, may I say that this new department will be perfectly welcome. In the north, and particularly in the Northwest Territories, there is great need for such a department as this. I have been down to Aklavik and, as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has said, others may go there. It is amazing that in the Northwest Territories there should be such an abundance of natural wealth of which there is no record at the present time, here or elsewhere.
The hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette) says that the province of Ontario has more timber wealth than the Northwest Territories. That is a doubtful statement.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I did not say that. I said that we had great natural forest wealth.


George Matheson Murray: I beg the hon. member's pardon; I thought he had made the definite statement. There is vast timber wealth in the Liard, Mackenzie and Yukon river areas, timber limits that have never been surveyed or officially noted. Tremendous forest fires destroy much of that timber, and when one realizes that we have no department to look after those resources, one cannot help being concerned. It is true that we have civil servants whose work has to do with these matters, but we should have a department headed by a minister who would be responsible for this work. Think of all the gold and other metallic wealth which has been taken out of that part of Canada, the quantities of base metals that are known to exist-and many of these areas are mapped by the surveys and mapping bureau-and the great wealth of oil and petroleum at Norman Wells and elsewhere.
I have gone along the Mackenzie river and have seen the oil running out from the shores
Resources and Development into the stream. I have seen a gas well up beyond Norman Wells which has been burning since Alexander Mackenzie passed through there in 1793. All these vast resources should be utilized.
The leader of the opposition objects to the creation of a mines department. Yet great progress and prosperity in the province of Ontario began with the development of new Ontario and the great mineral resources there, and the creation of a mines department in Ontario. The hon. gentleman has brought into the discussion the name of a former president of the United States. I am sure if Mr. Herbert Hoover were a Canadian and a member of this parliament, he would advocate the creation of a department of mines in Canada, because he is one of the most distinguished mining engineers alive today. I am therefore anxious to see this new department started.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, during our election campaign we emphasized the importance of the development of our natural resources. I venture to say that the bill now before us represents progress. The new minister may be in the house, and I suggest to him that north of the lakehead there is a large clay belt that is supposed to be rich in natural resources, especially oil. I compliment the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on being progressive in this respect.


George Alexander Drew: I wish, Mr. Speaker, to correct a possible misapprehension. I was not suggesting any limitation of activities in regard to mining; on the contrary, I emphasized their importance. What I was suggesting was that the mining activities and the mining development under a mining branch associated with one minister of resources would be more efficient than a separate department of this kind. I was emphasizing, rather than doing otherwise, the importance of the development of these great resources under a system that would be businesslike.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I do not think any of us misunderstood the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). I think we all understood that he was anxious, as are all of us in this house, to adopt the most efficient methods to promote the use of the great natural resources with which our country has been so bountifully blessed. As I see it, the only difference of view in this respect was that the leader of the opposition felt that this work might be more efficiently done under one department than under two departments. I thank the leader of the opposition for his constructive suggestions, and I thank the other hon. members who have participated in the debate. I think it has been shown that we are all

Resources and Development anxious to do that which will ensure the most efficient job in providing for the development and use of these resources.
I can assure the leader of the opposition that the matter of having these activities provided for by the two bills, No. 211, dealing with resources and development, and No. 212, dealing with mines and technical surveys, was carefully considered, and it was felt that it would be desirable to have two ministers responsible for those activities. One of them, the Minister of Resources and Development, would be principally concerned with the works and undertakings in process, whether for the federal government or in collaboration with the provincial governments. Many undertakings will require close collaboration between the federal and provincial authorities in order to bring about that measure of development which will be of benefit to the country as a whole. It was felt that all matters having to do with the physical works required to promote that development should be under one department, and that this would be quite enough to engage all its time and attention. It was felt that there should be another department which would be more in the nature of a service department, one which would be concerned with the making of scientific investigations which provide the data used sometimes by provincial administrations but oftener by individuals or groups of individuals who make them the foundation of their enterprises. This is the division that has been attempted in these two bills. The objective has been, on the one hand, the promotion of the physical works required to bring the resources into use, and, on the other, the scientific investigation which is necessary as a preparation for development work. In considering these bills hon. members will find that this is the line of demarcation that has been drawn.
The assistance of the Department of Mines and Resources has been sought for a number of years by those who have interested themselves in this highly speculative activity, as the leader of the opposition has described it, the results of which, however, have been of tremendous benefit to the Canadian economy. There has been pressure for a long time to have a department that would be specially concerned with the preparation of the basic information and data upon which the mining industry could rely when engaging in this highly speculative activity. There is no desire or attempt to invade the provincial field. However, all hon. members know that the services provided by the federal government with respect to surveys, assays and analyses have been of tremendous value in
tMr. St. Laurent.]
channeling properly these speculative activities, the results of which are of such benefit to us all.
I gave the approximate figures of the staffs in these two departments-something of the order of 2,000 to 3,000 in each; and I am sure the ministers and deputy ministers who will be charged with the responsibility of those departments will have, not overlapping jobs but full-time jobs, and that it will be in the public interest to have one of them specially concerned with pressing forward the works undertaken and the other concerned with the gathering of information and scientific data that will induce others to proceed with additional works of development.
It is in the interests of the development of these resources and their being brought into use for the improvement of the living conditions of all of us that these activities should be prosecuted with the greatest possible vigour and intensity. I hope it will appear reasonable to hon. members that there should be these two departments, the one pushing ahead works already undertaken, and the other preparing the field for vast new undertakings.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
Sections 1 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
On section 9-Department, minister and deputy minister substituted.
Mr. Knowles:: This section indicates that the new Minister of Resources and Development will carry out the functions of the various other ministers referred to in acts at present on the statute books. When the commission revising the statutes does its job, will it make the necessary changes so that we shall get rid of some of these complicated references, or shall we carry forward this sort of procedure indefinitely?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There were references in the revised statutes of 1927 to legislation going back certainly as far as 1907, and perhaps farther. I should hope, for the convenience of all who might have to refer to the statutes, that the commission will find it possible to bring these together, to suggest the repeal of these old statutes and have in the new acts relating to the several departments of government something comprehensive that will indicate the whole of the functions and responsibilities with which they are charged, thus making it unnecessary to refer to more than one act for each department.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I realize it is the work of the commission, but I am glad to have the Prime

Minister's statement in the matter. For example, only a few days ago we passed a measure concerning the trans-Canada highway, in which we gave certain rights and powers to the Minister of Mines and Resources. Today we are passing a bill to do away with the Minister of Mines and Resources as such. It is that sort of thing which I think might be tidied up.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.
On section 12-Annual report.
Mr, Knowles:: This section states that the minister shall submit to parliament, within thirty days after the commencement of the first session of parliament in each year, a report showing the operations of the department during the year then last preceding. As the Prime Minister knows, a similar section appears in most acts of parliament. Certainly there is one like it in every act constituting a department. What happens if the minister fails to carry out this provision?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: As a matter of unavoidable necessity it has frequently happened that departmental reports have not been tabled within the required fifteen or thirty days. They are tabled just as soon as they can be obtained from the printer. I have never heard any complaint voiced in the house about tardiness in bringing down such reports. It frequently happens that, because of congestion in the government printing bureau, reports are not available for tabling at the times specified in the acts.
When these bills were being considered by the cabinet a note was made to have the revising commission consider all these departmental acts so that there may be a uniform section in each, and to have it read that the reports be tabled within a certain time, or as soon as they can be obtained from the king's printer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad to hear the Prime Minister make that statement. All hon. members I am sure want to be generous, even to the members of the present Liberal government-although the Minister of Justice did not think we felt that way toward him in connection with another report. It seems to me, however, that we should not pass laws containing provisions, even as formal as this one, which it is thought will not be complied with. If law is law, it should be observed in all cases, and particularly by ministers of the crown. I hope this matter will be straightened out so that there will not be delays which certainly amount to failure to comply with the provisions of the law.
Resources and Development
The Prime Minister has said that sometimes delay is the result of difficulty in obtaining printed documents from the king's printer.
I would remind him that this year we had an example of delay on the part of the king's printer that did not interfere with compliance with the law on the part of the minister concerned. I refer to the public accounts and the report of the Auditor General. The law provides that, if parliament is sitting, the report must be laid on the table on October 31. On October 31 the Minister of Finance rose in his place and said that he did not have a printed copy of the report, but would table a typewritten copy. The report was thus made public, the press had access to it, and the law was observed. As a matter of fact, some of us did not get our copies until a few weeks later, but that did not mean that the law had not been carefully complied with by the Minister of Finance.
As the Prime Minister is probably aware, there have been four or five cases this session in which delays have occurred, and in not one case did the minister or the parliamentary assistant, when laying the report on the table, indicate that there was delay, explain it, or apologize for it. For instance, the report of the Department of Trade and Commerce for the year ended March 31, 1949, should have been tabled, according to section 7 of the Department of Trade and Commerce Act, on October 6; it was not tabled until November 23, seven weeks late. There was no explanation or apology.
Similarly the Canadian Maritime Commission Act provides that the report must be completed not later than June 30 and must be laid on the table within fifteen days after the opening of the next ensuing session of parliament. In other words, that report should have been tabled by September 30 of this year. It was not tabled until November 24, eight weeks late. Again nothing was said by way of apology or explanation. Something else having happened in this connection this year, which is very well known, it is natural that I should begin to wonder whether these requirements are being complied with; hence the discovery of the information I am now giving.
The reports of the auditors in connection with the Canadian Farm Loan Act and the Canadian Fisherman's Loan Act-I mention these two acts together, because the auditing is done at the same time-should have been tabled by September 30, according to the provisions of those two acts. They were not tabled until October 11, eleven days late.
In the case of the report of the Department of the Secretary of State, a much shorter
2590	HOUSE OF
Resources and Development period of time is allowed by the act. It should have been tabled within ten days after the meeting of parliament, which meant not later than September 25. But it was not tabled until November 18, a delay of eight weeks. I realize that none of these delays was as serious as was the delay in the tabling of the McGregor report on the flour milling industry; nevertheless that is the law as it stands. I have all of these sections before me, but I have not taken the time to read them. In the four or five cases I have mentioned there has been a nonchalant disregard of the law by laying on the table of the house reports that were from eleven days to eight weeks late.
As I have said already, the Minister of Finance made it clear that the law could be complied with even when the king's printer has not produced the printed copy. I urge that more care should be taken to observe laws of this kind. The proposal which the Prime Minister has made as to uniform procedure should be acted upon. I would go one step further and say that even after that is done, if a minister finds it is impossible to comply with the law to the extent of presenting printed copies of the report in question, he should do what the Minister of Finance did. The Minister of Finance is not always a hero of mine, but in that case he kept the law. If a minister cannot keep the law, he should at least explain to the house what has happened, and I am sure that in such circumstances the house would be generous. Since we are making laws which we expect the people of Canada to observe, I think they should be observed by the government as well. Surely that is not asking too much.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 13 agreed to.
On the schedule.
Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: I intend to ask a minister to move an amendment to the schedule deleting the reference to two acts.


Alphonse Fournier: I move:
That the following words be deleted from the schedule:	"Dominion Forest Reserves and Parks
Act, R.S. 1927, 78"; "Northwest Game Act, R.S. 1927, 141."


Walter Edward Harris: The first act was repealed the other day by the Canada Forestry Act, and the second act was repealed during the 1947 session, but the repeal was not proclaimed until last year, and they got into the schedule in error.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule as amended agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr.   SI Laurent moved@: the third reading of the bill.


Alphonse Fournier: I should like to ask the unanimous consent of the house to third reading this day. I understand that standing order 73 provides that every bill shall receive three separate readings on different days, but perhaps at this stage of the session unanimous consent could be given, unless some hon. member has a speech to make on the third reading.


Mr. Maclnnis:: I suppose the same request will be made with regard to all these bills that are before us. I have no objection to this being done, provided it is not taken as a precedent and becomes a custom. My reading of history has convinced me that no majority was ever so large that it could be magnanimous. A minority always has to protect its rights.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that motion for third reading has been made, a procedure to which I do not think hon. members will object, I should like to exercise my right to make a few comments in regard to one matter that came up in the course of discussion. I wish most emphatically to go on record as saying that I believe it is only a question of time before someone examining these two departments will come back with a recommendation that they be one department.
I should like to deal with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette). I recognize that the hon. member is keenly interested in mining, as all of us are, whether we live in a mining constituency or not. The hon. member said he felt sure that if this was the United States, Mr. Herbert Hoover would be the first to suggest that there be a department of mines.
I think the hon. member left the impression that there is a department of mines in Washington. There is not, and Mr. Hoover did not recommend that. On the contrary his recommendations all involved simplification of departments. Mining activities are under the department of the interior at Washington. That department embraces most of the subjects covered by the two bills now before us. For instance, the Department of the Interior at Washington covers mining, the bureau of land management-which is all land-Indian affairs, geological surveys, land reclamation, park services, fish and wildlife, and a number of other details, including technical surveys and matters of the kind which are embraced in these two bills. There are additions, but I only wish to emphasize now, because I am certain the matter will come up for discussion

again, that those who desire the efficient development of our mines would certainly wish to have it done in a way that will bring the greatest possible information to the public.
We are not dealing directly now with a department of mines. We are dealing with a measure which I suggest could have been amended to include mining activities. If we had done so we would have followed the practice that is followed in Washington. When I say that, I do not mean that we should follow the pattern of Washington. I raise the question because of my belief that the inquiry conducted into the administrative structure of their government was a most important one. It was at that point that the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette), who is keenly interested in the whole subject, suggested that they would not think of not having a department of mines at Washington. They have not a separate department of mines, and for the very good reason, in my opinion, that the whole subject should be embraced under one ministerial head, with different branches dealing with the various subjects related to the resources of the whole country.
I intend to say nothing more, other than that the vote on third reading will be on division. I have urged that there be an amendment to the bill, purely for the purpose of seeking to produce the most efficient results. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has put forward reasons, which appear sound to him, why there should be separate departments. I simply wished to indicate why I feel it would be better if it were not done in this way, and also that in the United States they do not follow the practice of having a separate department.


George Matheson Murray: May I say that the hon. member's knowledge of the geography of Canada is slightly confused, because I am the member for Cariboo. My people would be most disappointed if they thought I was representing Cochrane.


George Alexander Drew: I was not referring to the hon. member for Cariboo, but to the hon. member for Cochrane. I understood he had spoken about the Hoover commission. If it was the hon. member for Cariboo, I wish to make it clear I knew he was the member for Cariboo, and I shall be glad to have that corrected.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


George Alexander Drew: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the third time and passed.
Mines and Technical Surveys



MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: the second reading of Bill No. 212, respecting the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys.


George Alexander Drew: I want to deal briefly with this bill, without repeating the remarks I have already made as to the consolidation of the two departments.
It must be remembered that the mines department of the dominion government deals with the broad problems of mining and information related thereto; it is not responsible for the direct development of the resources except to the extent that such information may contribute to the desired result.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Perhaps the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) would add that it deals with such mines as may be in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.


George Alexander Drew: Yes, such mines as are outside of existing provincial areas, and there are some increasingly important mines in that region. Having said that, I want to emphasize the fact that the department in Ottawa has been the source of extremely useful information which has been the basis of discoveries of the utmost importance. The most romantic and dramatic story of discovery of mines in Canada was that concerning the finding of the Eldorado mine on Great Bear lake. Many people have forgotten, if they were ever aware of the fact, that the records in Ottawa played an extremely important part in the discovery of that mine. This may well be remembered in setting up the organization under the new terms of authority.
When those who intended to seek minerals in that area were about to set out on their expedition, they came to Ottawa to find out what they could about records of mineral possibilities in the Northwest Territories. They examined the original records of Samuel Hearne, who had covered the area in the eighteenth century when he was going through the Northwest Territories in the Great Bear lake region and on to the Arctic. He described evidence of rich minerals he had seen on the face of jutting rocks on the shore of a lake which at that time had no name, and which in fact did not appear on any map of Canada in anything approaching its actual shape until the early thirties. It was only then that any map existed which showed the actual shape of Great Bear lake, one of the largest bodies of fresh water in Canada.

Mines and Technical Surveys From Hearne's description and the type of promontory outlined by him, they decided to look for the great promontory where he had recorded this rich outcrop so many years before. What was found was the very thing Hearne had discovered one hundred and seventy years earlier. The gossan that was seen from the aircraft led the prospectors to the very point that had been described, toward which they were first attracted by what they had seen ' in those early records available in Ottawa. From that discovery came not only a great and important mine, but also a substantial contribution toward the production of the atomic bomb in the last war. I mention this to re-emphasize the vast importance of detailed information. We have advanced a great distance from the time Hearne travelled those waters in a canoe to the point where another important mining area was discovered through the opportunity to examine air maps of northern Manitoba. The development of the rich mineral resources in the God's lake area came about through an examination of air maps of that district which showed promising indications of what have turned out to be very productive mines. There is an accumulation of information through the years that can be of immense importance in the development of those areas; and as surveys are carried out, as survey parties report their information, and as the various indications of mineral possibilities are brought back to Ottawa, I urge that all this information be indexed in the satisfactory way in which it has been done up to now, and also that something be done to encourage an interest in that information on the part of those who at some future time may find these resources a matter of practical interest.
I say this because I know that many people directly interested, in the discovery of mines have never had occasion to think of searching these records for suggestions which may be contained in the information there available. With the new scientific developments that tell us so much about what lies beneath the surface of the earth, these records are becoming more useful; and I urge that in addition to carrying forward this work at an ever-accelerated rate from the point of view of information, every practical step be taken to encourage, in the minds of young people in the mining technical schools and the engineering branches of our universities, an appreciation of the vast storehouse of knowledge that already has been accumulated here and will be accumulated in the years to come.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Again I am looking for information. We in the opposition have not access to expert advice in order to get some of these answers; but just looking at this bill as a layman it seems to me to be in a different category from the one we passed a few moments ago. With respect to the department created under that bill, it seemed to me that while it has a new name, it is really one of the present departments being continued with added responsibilities, with the result that it is a substantial and responsible department. Under this bill, however, we seem to be taking things away from a department which has been under the direction of a minister. The Department of Mines and Resources has had to do with mines, immigration, Indian affairs and so on. Although this is a question, I shall put it in the form of a statement and hope to get the answer in one way or another. It seems to me that this department is being whittled down until it does not compare with the others in terms of responsibility. Can the Prime Minister or his assistant give us some idea of the amount of work in this department as compared with that in the department we set up a moment ago, or, indeed, as compared with that in the departments of the government as a whole? It seems to me that my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, made an apt suggestion the other day when he proposed that the whole government administration should be surveyed with a view to determining whether the work is being evenly and properly distributed.


Walter Edward Harris: Without entering into a general discussion covering all the departments of government, let me indicate the difference between these two departments. The new Department of Mines and Technical Surveys will have about 1,800 employees during the winter season. It will be considerably larger during the summer months, when the survey parties are out. According to present estimates, the budget will amount to about $15 million, exclusive of the assistance given under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. Therefore I suggest to the hon. member that this is not a department which is being whittled! down, but that it is a very substantial department. It will carry on all the functions of the mines and resources department, except those which are being transferred to resources and development.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then can the parliamentary assistant tell us how many employees the old Department of Mines and Resources had, and what was its annual budget? And could

he refer to one or two other departments, just for purposes of comparison? I would not ask him to do it for all the departments.


Walter Edward Harris: The present
Department of Mines and Resources has had as many as 7,200 employees in the summer. The number is considerably higher in the summer than it is in the winter. The new Department of Resources and Development will have about 2,700 employees during the winter, and its budget will run to about $26 million. The hon. member can see, therefore, the relative importance of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys and the Department of Resources and Development. As to the other departments of government, I suggest that the hon. member look at the estimates. I have not the details before me at the moment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think the parliamentary assistant made a mistake, of which I shall not take advantage; naturally 1 would not do a thing like that. He gave the lower figure for the new department, the figure for the winter, as 1,800. Then he gave the maximum figure, in the case of the old department, of 7,200. In fairness to himself and in fairness to the departments I think he should have given the other figure as well, so we could make a proper comparison. With regard to those figures, if we are taking a department that had 7,200 employees and cutting it down to a department with only 1,800, I think my phrase "whittling down" would not be inappropriate.


Walter Edward Harris: But the hon. member has overlooked the number who will go into the Department of Resources and Development which is now being set up.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But that does not answer my query, whether we are not leaving this one as a rather small department as compared with the others.


Walter Edward Harris: The three bills before the house are somewhat comparable, both as to budget and as to number of employees. When we come to the next bill it will be found that the number of employees is 3,100, and the budget is about $19 million.


Mr. Gillis:: I agree with what the leader of the opposition has said with respect to this department; I referred to this when the bills were introduced. Looking over the estimates one would almost think we were beginning to develop a system of technocracy in this country. From end to end of the estimates, in public works and every other department of government, it is engineers, engineers, engineers. I am wondering to 45781-165
Mines and Technical Surveys what extent this Department of Mines and Technical Surveys will duplicate the work done in the provinces. Each province has a department of mines which has its engineers and geologists and is doing a practical job of work in connection with our resources. With all the engineers and geologists we have in the mines department in Ottawa, certainly we must be duplicating a great deal of the work done by the provinces. From the start I did not see that this was necessary. I believed it was necessary to unscramble the Department of Mines and Resources in order to find out what many of its branches were doing; but in my view the creation of another department, with another minister and a lot more engineers and so on, in order to duplicate a great deal of the work being carried on by the provinces, is quite unnecessary. This minister, whoever he may be, is going to have a pretty good job. I suggest to the Prime Minister that he should get this minister a whistle such as they have on peanut stands, so he can blow it occasionally and let us know he is around.
I have gone all through these estimates and had a look at the provisions for engineers and other technical men in our departments, and I think that handing over our resources to these people merely adds up to technocracy. I suppose, and hope, that the Department of Resources and Development will be presided over by an engineer, such as the present Minister of Reconstruction and Supply; and I think mines and technical surveys logically belong to that department. If that minister is to be in charge of the development of our resources he should have under his direction those working on the resources from a geological standpoint and otherwise. I cannot understand why they should be separated. My conception of this department always has been that it contains a group of experts who are pioneering, who are not duplicating the work done by the provinces but who have knowledge of our frontiers and are pushing them back, gathering information which the provincial departments are not gathering and making that information available to them. But I cannot visualize the department, as I have come to know it since I have been in Ottawa, carrying on that sort of work.
I agree with what was said by the leader of the opposition, in his emphatic way, that this department should come under the other one. It is unnecessary to create a new department. Some hon. member says that Hoover would tell us we should have a mines department. Well, we have ten mines departments in this country; and from my contact with that department in my own province I know it is doing an excellent job. There is
2S94

Mines and Technical Surveys no information I may want with respect to the resources of that province that I cannot get there, without having to come to Ottawa for it. If I were looking for some information in connection with the Yukon, naturally I would come here. I believe it is a waste of time and money to create another department such as this. It should be handed over to the Minister of Resources and Development.


Mr. Applewhaiie:: I think it is my duty to the people of northern British Columbia whom I represent to support the move for a separate department of mines. Prior to the last war it was a common thing-I was going to say it was a popular pastime, but I do not want to be facetious-for organizations interested in mining to pass and send to Ottawa resolutions requesting this government to set up a department of mines under a minister who would have no other responsibility.
I would suggest to the opposition that the importance of the work a government department can do is not necessarily to be judged entirely by the number of employees it may have on its pay roll, but rather on the results it may achieve. Considering the fact that we have responsibility for geological surveys, and that mining is a matter of nation-wide concern, I think this department with its own minister is definitely justified. Where I shall be opposing the Prime Minister is when he endeavours, as I hope he will not, to saddle the minister of mines with several other departments. I can assure the house that if the federal department of mines does the job which it is expected to do, and which is there for it to do, the expenditure will be amply justified and the minister will be a busy man.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: For some years investigations on the Columbia river have been conducted by a joint engineering board, and a large number of technical surveys have been undertaken. Some of those surveys were undertaken by the Department of Mines and Resources and some by the Department of Public Works. Will the adoption of this legislation mean that in future all those surveys will come under the direction of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys?


Walter Edward Harris: If these bills pass, the investigations referred to by the hon. member will come under the direction of the Department of Resources and Development.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the parliamentary assistant now in a position to complete the information he was giving me a short time ago? It seems to me that in fairness to all concerned he should not leave on the record the statement that the present Department of Mines and Resources has had 7,200 employees at the peak, in the summertime, whereas the new Department of Mines and
[Mr. Gillis.l
Technical Surveys will have as its minimum number, in the wintertime, some 1,800. Is he not in a position to give us the minimum number of employees in the old department, as compared with the 1,800 in the new one?


Walter Edward Harris: The minimum number of employees of the old departments in October was slightly over 7,500. They will be divided between the new departments approximately 3,100, 1,800 and 2,700, so they would add up to about the same figure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That does not answer my point.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On section 6-Further duties.
George Alexander Drew: This section sets out broadly the duties of the minister in a number of fields, and contains one paragraph that I think should receive the attention of every hon. member who is interested in avoiding duplication, and in the efficiency of a number of public services that are now available. Under the words "the minister shall", paragraph 6 (d) says:
. . . make such chemical, mechanical, metallurgical and other researches and investigations as are necessary or desirable to carry out the purposes and provisions of this act and particularly to aid the mining and metallurgical industry of Canada.
At an earlier point in the discussion of these two bills it was suggested that there is no duplication between dominion and provincial activities in these fields. There is great duplication. It is difficult to estimate how great the annual loss may be through unnecessary duplication and the blank spots which are left because of the fact that there is no effective co-ordination of our many research activities. Here in Ottawa there is the national research council, with its large buildings and its extensive facilities. In Toronto, for instance, there is the Ontario research foundation, which is associated with the provincial government and is carrying on research which is quite as extensive and which in some ways covers a wider field. There are also the research activities of our great universities across this country. There are important industrial, mining and forestry organizations with elaborate research establishments of their own. The duplication is great. I say that as a result of a report that I have read on the subject.
But what is equally serious is that, through lack of co-ordination of our research activities, much research which should be carried on is not being carried on at all. Quite as important as the avoidance of duplication of research in this or in any other field of public responsibility is the allocation of research

tasks which will make certain that everything is done that needs to be done. In adopting section 6 and bringing research in this particular field under the minister of mines, I would strongly urge that steps be taken to work out a procedure for the undertaking of research activity which has never at any time been carried out in this country.


George Matheson Murray: May I draw attention to the work done by the university of British Columbia in research, inasmuch as the don. gentleman has referred to the universities. I would point out that right across the country they do not duplicate but rather add a third service for the development of these jjreat mineral resources. The university of British Columbia has carried on research and das turned out experts and technicians who today are largely responsible for the management of the mining industry in British Columbia. I will not mention the names of the various technicians, but they are the result of the training given in the university of British Columbia.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: May I say just a word in that connection. As the leader of the opposition knows, there already is a substantial measure of collaboration among the provincial departments, the universities and this branch af the present Department of Mines and Resources. From my own experience as a lawyer before I came here I know that concerns for which I was acting would go to the provincial department, to the universities in the province of Quebec or to the federal Department of Mines and Resources. It frequently happened that their experimental work was done here in the Department of Mines and Resources, but at their cost. On other occasions some of their technicians were allowed to come and use the facilities in the mining branch and to get the assistance of the officials in that branch in conducting assays.
I fully agree with the leader of the opposition that it will be one of the responsibilities of this department to see to it that there is available to everyone the fullest information as to where it would be most convenient for him to obtain the kind of services that will foster the development of the undertaking in which he is engaged.


George Alexander Drew: I agree with what the Prime Minister has said about the availability of these services. The procedure he has mentioned of carrying out, in co-operation with mining or industrial organizations, research activities for which these organizations pay, is of great importance. I should prefer that there be no lack of recognition of the need Eor more effective co-ordination.
45781-165J
Mines and Technical Surveys
I may say that, in one particular case into which I was inquiring, I found that three distinct research groups were working on a problem related to one aspect of mining development within an area of about twenty square miles. I do not think there is any secret about it. One was being carried on by the Ontario research foundation, one by the university of Toronto, and one by an industrial organization, without any of them knowing that others were doing precisely the same thing in the same field. By consolidation of their activities they were able to effect great savings. That principle applies to the whole field. What has been said by the hon. member for Cariboo with regard to the university of British Columbia is abundantly true. Every one of our universities has done a great job. But in the field of pure research, the allocation of tasks by some co-operative body that is associated with all research activities could effect great savings and increase the beneficial results of research in this country.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 7 to 12 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the same understanding, yes.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION



CREATION OP NEW DEPARTMENT


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: the second reading of Bill No. 213, respecting the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


George Alexander Drew: Just a moment; I assume some explanation is to be given as to the general purpose of the bill, and I should think this
2596	HOUSE OF
Citizenship and Immigration would be an excellent occasion lor a brief summary of the government's policy at this time in regard to immigration.


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: Mr. Speaker, the purpose
of the bill is to set up a department which will be charged with citizenship, immigration and Indian affairs. The matter was discussed at the resolution stage. It was stated then, and I now repeat, that the object in all these activities is to make Canadian citizens of those who come here as immigrants, and to make Canadian citizens of as many as possible of the descendants of the original inhabitants of this country.
As hon. members are aware, the responsibility for immigration and Indian affairs was heretofore with the Department of Mines and Resources, and the activities with respect to citizenship were with the Department of the Secretary of State. During the war period and in the years immediately following, immigration into this country was quite restricted, and has been increasing from year to year. There is a probability that there will be an increasing number of persons admitted as immigrants into this country to share with us the advantages and responsibilities of developing the resources of Canada.
With respect to our residents of Indian descent, happily for the last several years there has been a change in the previous trend. That trend had been toward a diminution in numbers. This however has been reversed to a point where there is now an increase in the number of residents of Canada descended from the original inhabitants of this country. With the additional health services being provided for them, I believe that trend will become definite, and that we may look forward to a steady increase in the number of residents of Canada descended from the original inhabitants.
That being so I believe it would be the desire of all of us that everything possible be done to facilitate the development of a condition in which they might be expected to take their place in increasing numbers in our Canadian citizenship. All hon. members know of individual cases where descendants of the original residents have abandoned the protective provisions of the Indian Act and have become Canadian citizens. We know of the contribution they have made to Canadian national life.
I am sure it is the desire of all of us that everything within reason which can be done to further that movement should be realized. As hon. members know, there have been a great many requests for the setting up of a department which would deal with these human resources of the Canadian nation, and


the sole responsibility of which would be the proper development of those human resources.
That is the purpose for which the government is suggesting to the house the establishment of a separate department to assume that responsibility and to discharge the functions required to bring about as expeditiously as possible the integration into the citizenship of this nation of as many as possible of those who come here as immigrants and of those who had resided here and who are descended from the original residents.
It is for that purpose that the establishment of the department is suggested. Then, as to the government's policy with respect to immigration, I do not know that I could add very much to what was said by the former prime minister in his statement to the house on May 1, 1947, which is to be found at page 2644 and following of Hansard for that session, and the statement I made to the house on March 11, 1949, concerning the modifications that had been made to the regulations in connection with the admission of immigrants.
A large number have been admitted to this country in the last couple of years. There have been a considerable number of those unfortunate persons who were in displaced persons camps in continental Europe. I think that, generally, they have fitted themselves into Canadian life without very much embarrassment to any of our Canadian people. It is my view that our experience in that respect has demonstrated that, while it was principally on humanitarian grounds that these people were admitted to our country, they will ultimately prove that the bread we cast upon the waters is returning to us.


Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say only a few words in the debate on second reading of this measure. I am wondering if the reasons for many of these changes in the matter of setting up additional governmental departments are not similar to those which I expressed when the resolutions were before the house last Saturday. I know the government and the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) are making strenuous efforts to establish a case for an extra minister of the crown, but I think it boils down to this, that the argument is for another minister more than it is for the necessity of an allocation of duties among the various departments. I should like to repeat what I said before. I think the government ought to have said to the house, "We want another cabinet minister and are taking this means to provide the extra portfolio." The arguments that have been offered have been

circuitous and in some cases not very sound in respect to the need for an extra portfolio such as is envisaged by this legislation.
I think most hon. members will admit that immigration has been a very important part of governmental work and I know many have felt that a deputy minister of immigration would perhaps be desirable and acceptable in view of the importance that branch has now assumed. At this point I should like to pay a tribute to the present director of immigration, Mr. Jolliffe, who has been identified with this branch for so many years and who in so many instances has exercised fairness and judgment and common sense in dealing with the problems of immigration. I think his attitude meets with the approval of most hon. members, regardless of what section of the house they occupy. Now that the new legislation is before us I do not think that I would object strenuously to the setting up of a really important department to deal with immigration with a proper deputy minister at its head.
However, this was not mv main reason for rising at this time. I think this shuffling of the ministry so far as the allocation of work is concerned is wholly unjustified at this time, particularly with respect to citizenship. While I am in certain agreement with the Prime Minister about citizenship and immigration going together, still I do not like the idea of this branch of government being separated from the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley). In saying what I intend to say I intend no reflection upon the Secretary of State, but the fact remains that in this shuffle the Secretary of State is having something taken away from his department when perhaps something should have been added. I would hope that this would be taken into consideration by the government in making any move.
The portfolio of the Secretary of State- there are some others I could name as well-does not entail the effort and labour that some of the other portfolios do. If we are going to have more portfolios, then I submit the government is in duty bound to consider whether the present allocation of work among the ministers of the crown is proper. I do not think it is, and I do not think parliament thinks it is. It would now appear that we are to have 22 ministers of the crown. Twenty-one would seem to be sufficient and perhaps might be considered too many. We have left the war and transitional periods behind and I fancy the public in general would like to see some retrenchment rather than expansion in the number of portfolios in the government.
Citizenship and Immigration
I should like to have the Prime Minister's assurance that this shuffling about will not mean an additional cabinet minister. I think that is something the public would like to know and I ask the Prime Minister to give us that assurance before the debate concludes To me it seems to be merely a matter of having the work and services properly allocated and distributed among the available ministers of the crown. While this objection may not apply to the other two instances with the force that it applies to the present instance, I think that should be considered. There is perhaps much that can be said in favour of having these two branches of the government combined in one department, but if it is going to mean another minister I think that could be avoided by a proper allocation of the duties having to do with citizenship and immigration. I think that with the present members of the cabinet the Prime Minister will find that the work will be in good hands.
I should like to impress upon the government the great desire that some of us on this side have to see to it that the cabinet is kept within bounds so far as numbers are concerned. No doubt a great many representations have been made to the Prime Minister with regard to men who it is felt ought to be in the cabinet, but I suggest that with his large following he should steel himself against the idea of adding to the number of cabinet ministers. A should like that to be taken into consideration because I think it is out of joint with the times to add another cabinet minister, at least until those who are holding portfolios in the government find that their duties are such that they are overworked and have no available time to handle these extra departments. I repeat, I should like to have the assurance of the Prime Minister at some stage that this will be done.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the necessity was with regard to the other two departments that have been created by the legislation that preceded this bill, but I feel it is not only appropriate but desirable that immigration and citizenship should be in one department. I am glad that there is a bill before us for that purpose. I always found it to be a rather curious situation when writing about matters of immigration that I had to write to the Minister of Mines and Resources. It did not seem to me it was a very appropriate situation. Furthermore, and again expressing no opinion as to the necessity for any new department, I believe the Minister of Mines and Resources had too many different kinds of departments under him. I do not know if it would serve any useful purpose

Citizenship and Immigration to follow the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) in the reasons he gave for creating this new department. It occurred to me when he was speaking that it is easier to be strong when you have no pressure put upon you, and when you are not confronted with temptation either through pleas or anything else of that nature. The person who is free from temptation and pressure can indeed be strong, but whether or not he can take credit for that I do not know.


Mr. J. L. Gibson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I think all members of the house will be pleased with one particular feature of the bill. I refer to the fact that the Indian affairs branch is being given a somewhat larger place in the new department. I sincerely trust the new minister who is appointed to take charge of the department will give this great problem the attention which it merits. As the house knows, a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons was set up in 1945 to examine the Indian Act. As a member of that committee I think I can say with fairness that some excellent recommendations were made to the government in the final report of the committee, and also that a good many changes were suggested in the Indian Act which up to this time have not been implemented.
I am not going to be entirely critical of the delay that has been occasioned by the study of the proposed legislation by the Department of Justice. I realize it is a far-reaching measure, and that a great deal of study and thought must be given to it. Nevertheless I sincerely trust that when the new minister takes charge of the new department he will take aggressive steps to see that the bill is taken out of the hands of the Department of Justice and brought forward to the House of Commons. I hope the next session of the house will see the revised Indian Act introduced.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, there is one feature of the bill which I should like to mention. I think the provision as to immigration is one which should be given careful examination when the department is being organized because we either have a policy in regard to immigration or we have not. If we have a definite policy it should be clearly understood, and the activities of the department should be carried on in relation to whatever the stated policy is. One of the greatest problems that face those who seek to come to this country through the immigration agencies now in operation is the difficulty of obtaining the various requirements to come here without a measure of assistance that is
[Mr. Maclnnis.l
usually not available. If we are actually seeking to facilitate the entry of immigrants of a certain type to this country from different lands, then we should at the same time make it as easy as possible for these people to be able to carry out what they desire to do provided they meet our standards.
One of the biggest problems of the immigrant is to find out what he has to do in getting a passport, satisfying the medical requirements, exchanging his money, meeting the various conditions that must be met, and obtaining his transportation. In so far as there is set forth a clear policy that can be interpreted, and at the moment we have none, then it should be interpreted in practical results at the other end in a way that will assist those who are seeking to come here. There is no difficulty whatever about bringing together under one roof in every great centre through which immigrants will pass all the facilities that will make it possible for them to arrange to come here without having to go all over the place in a large city which they are perhaps visiting for the first time. This has been done, and although it is not being done today it can be done by our own department of immigration. The administration of every one of these various requirements can be brought into a single office so that immigrants can come in, pass their tests, be examined, and have that office provide everything for them, including transportation. That would then facilitate arrangements at this end for meeting them and helping them to find their new homes. I strongly urge that in setting up the new department these simple but necessary and effective provisions be made for those who are going to be permitted to come to this country.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker-


Ms. Speaker:: If the Prime Minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not intend to say very much.
I merely wish to state again that it is not easy to please everyone, and I should like to refer hon. members to the plea made by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) in 1947 for what is now being done. Hon. members will find his speech recorded in Hansard for July 11, 1947, at page 5430. The hon. member persisted in the same views and expressed them again in the house in the month of October, 1949, during this very session. Hon. members will find what he had to say in that respect at page 545 of Hansard of the 5th of October, 1949. I might read one or two paragraphs. He said:
I should like to refer briefly to our Department oi Mines and Resources. In this department in Ottawa

we have some of the best mineralogists, engineers, geophysicists and geologists to be found anywhere in the world.
He was developing the idea he had expressed two years before in saying that the Department of Mines and Resources had become a receptacle for various tag ends of business. He went on to say:
Immigration really is a full-time job, because it is one of the most important problems facing Canada today. In my opinion it is wholly wrong to place immigration in the Department of Mines and Resources and thus divide the duties of the minister between immigration and mining. Both matters require a great deal of attention, and the minister cannot give undivided attention to either. The qualifications for both these jobs are entirely different.
Further on he said:
I am sure they-
He refers to hon. members.
-will admit that no one department should have both mines and Indian affairs under its jurisdiction. Indian affairs is a completely different subject which has nothing to do with mining.
Further on he had this to say:
In my opinion the centralization of the department of mines under one roof, making it solely a department of mines-not a sort of wastebasket into which all sorts of other difficult problems can be thrown-and giving it the most modern equipment possible, is one of the first things that any central planning board for Ottawa or for the national capital plan should consider.
That was not a solitary opinion of the hon. member. So important a newspaper as the Toronto Globe and Mail, commenting upon the announcement that this was to be done, said on the 14th of November:
Potentially the most far-reaching of the new federal cabinet changes is the creation of a Department of Citizenship and Immigration. These two broad functions are naturally allied in administration. The government is to be commended for having set up machinery which should enable a minister to devote his full time to developing our human resources.
The Toronto Telegram, another newspaper known to some of those who thought it fitting to criticize today, had an article in its issue of November 23 commenting upon the announcement that had been made, and its title was, "This reorganization long overdue". I shall not take time to read other editorials, but I give these as two indications that even when anyone claims to belong to a certain party his views may not be the same as those of others who also claim to be of that party.
The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) wants me to give the house the assurance that there will be no additional cabinet minister charged with responsibility for these matters following this reorganization which, according to this newspaper, is long overdue; but he is asking me to go further than I am prepared to go at this moment. I would not
Citizenship and Immigration care to do more than give him the assurance that I will not place him in the embarrassing position of having to refuse the new portfolio that is to be created.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
John Lambert Gibson: In closing the debate the Prime Minister did not refer at all to Indian affairs. I wonder if he has any comment to make in that connection.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not think I would have anything to add to what I said in moving second reading. I think we are all happy to note that there has been a change in the trend; that while for many generations the Indian population was decreasing in number, in the last decade or so it has been increasing, probably as a consequence of better sanitation and health services. That trend has become decided; all these Indian groups are increasing in numbers, and I think it fitting that the greatest possible care should be given their health services, educational services and all the others factors which might assist them in finding their place in the citizenship of the country. I should think also the aim of the administration of Indian affairs should be to entice and prepare as many as possible for the assumption of the dignity and responsibilities of full citizenship in the Canadian nation.


John Lambert Gibson: I had referred to the bill, also, and I wondered if the Prime Minister had anything to say as to the introduction of that bill at the earliest possible date.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: This is a matter that has given my colleague the Minister of Mines and Resources much concern. I know he has been pressing the preparation of that legislation, but within the last three or four weeks we were told that the Department of Justice would not have it ready for introduction at this session. It is a complete revision of the whole Indian Act. The work done by the committee on Indian affairs was voluminous and is proving very useful, and the department is trying to prepare a revision of the act that will embody many if not all of the constructive suggestions brought out in that joint committee. I can assure hon. members that the minister was anxious to have it ready for this session. The matter came up for discussion many times, but finally we were told that it was not possible to have a proper bill ready in time.


George Alexander Drew: May I briefly refer to the Prime Minister's suggestion that it took very little
2800	HOUSE OF
Citizenship and Immigration to satisfy some people. That was very noisily demonstrated following his remarks at that point. I must say that I hope no embarrassment will be caused his supporters by reason of the fact that he is now taking the very excellent advice of two newspapers about which some of his supporters in Ontario have not been so complimentary in the past.
I wish to refer seriously, however, to one aspect of the creation of a Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the placing of these matters under another minister. I deferred these comments because I had just been informed of something that emphasizes a point I wish to make, and that I attempted to make in my earlier remarks on second reading. To whatever extent this country is prepared to receive immigrants from other lands, then in this complex period in the development of our modern society we should not ask those immigrants when they arrive here to work out their own problems without adequate assistance in regard to those things about which almost inevitably they will know nothing at all. I mentioned previously the desirability of simplifying the procedure at the other end so that when people go to London, Paris, Rome or any other large city in Europe, perhaps for the very first time, they may find that in one place they will be able to carry out all the details that are necessary for them to come to their new home.
More than that is needed, however. When they arrive here it is not enough that they simply be handed booklets telling of our currency provisions, giving a map of the country, and certain explanations of our habits and customs. It is essential that we set up an effective mechanism to really help these people find themselves in the places where they can get the kind of work for which they are suited by their past experience. This is particularly true in the case of those who do not speak either English or French. In those cases it is essential that adequate provision be made to inform those people in their own language exactly what they must do in order to find suitable occupations.
Just today I saw an illustration of this point which emphasizes the need for carrying our whole immigration and citizenship machinery further than it has yet gone. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police have investigated a report from Thessalon that six Italian immigrants were left for 29 days, without proper food or clothing, in a broken-down lumber camp 70 miles north of that northern Ontario centre. This press dispatch further indicates that the Ontario provincial police had investigated this situation first, and had explained that these people 

were wholly unprepared to meet the conditions which confronted them. It is reported that the deputy minister of lands and forests in Ontario said that these men were apparently completely inexperienced with Canadian bush conditions, and the food they took into the camp was not enough for the hard work to be performed. As a result of this, the men nearly starved.
Incidents of this type are happening too often. They are happening because there is no machinery set up to effectively guide these people; not to say what they must do, but to assist them in finding the sort of work for which they are suited. They should be helped to equip themselves to meet the conditions they are going to meet. This applies not only to the people coming from the lands I have mentioned, but also to those whom we describe as d.p.'s. Those d.p.'s have gone through experiences that justify every consideration on our part. If these people have satisfied our tests as to admissibility, then the very kind of experience through which they have passed will give them reason to be among our best citizens, so long as we receive them well when they come here. From their own experience, those people know what freedom really means. Except for those who are deliberately planted here as communist agents, they are the most vigorous anti-communists we shall have in our community, so long as we really welcome them with an effective procedure of assistance when they arrive here. I strongly urge that, with the creation of this new department, we have an efficient and businesslike system for helping those whom we are going to receive in Canada.
We should receive them without the slightest suggestion of directing either their work or how they will live. We should assist them, not only in getting to places where the type of work for which they are qualified will be available, but also in meeting the conditions they will face, particularly if they are far from the settled communities to which they are accustomed. We are fighting communism, and everything for which it stands, on the wider field. Most of those who come here from other countries are coming because of their belief in freedom. One of the ways in which we shall most effectively make sure that they continue to believe in freedom and our democratic system, so that they will become the excellent type of citizens for which their background fits them if they have an opportunity, is to help them when they arrive, to encourage them in every way to feel that we are really welcoming them as citizens of Canada. This procedure would

prevent any poisoning by communist doctrines, and would make them good citizens once they have decided to make this their home.


Mr. Higgins:: Mr. Chairman, if I may I should like to obtain clarification of the position of the Indians and Eskimos in Newfoundland. I believe the Prime Minister will recall that I addressed a question to him the other day, but I did not expect an answer at that time because he was not prepared to give it. There are a number of questions arising out of preliminary statements that were obtained in 1947. If it is permissible, I should like to have those questions answered now.
In 1947, sir, there was a meeting between the delegation from the Newfoundland national convention and a committee of the cabinet. A special committee of the delegates and of the committee of the cabinet was set up to deal with Indian and Eskimo problems. A preliminary statement showing the position of Newfoundland Indians and Eskimos in the event of union can be found on page 102 of volume 2 of the report of meetings by the delegates from the national convention of Newfoundland and representatives of the government of Canada. It states:
Under the Indian. Act, Indians and Eskimos in Canada are regarded as one race for purposes of administration. In the event of Newfoundland becoming a province of Canada, the Indians and Eskimos of Newfoundland and Labrador would be the sole responsibility of the federal government and, under existing legislation, would be entitled to benefits and would be subject to regulations which include the following:
I am not going through them all, but I shall deal with the pertinent ones. No. 1 reads as follows:
Free education, provided through day schools and boarding schools. Where boarding schools already exist subsidies ranging from $165 to $300 per pupil per year are paid.
I should like to know if that is so.
2.	Free medical services including hospitalization.
I know that cannot be correct because I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare a question at page 2149 of Hansard. His answer is as follows:
While the federal government has given some assistance in emergency cases provision of medical services for the Indians and Eskimos in Labrador has been and has continued to be the responsibility of the Newfoundland government.
There is a definite contradiction on that particular point.
At page 103 of the volume from which I have been quoting, it is stated that the provincial governments in Canada do not contribute in any way to the support of the Indian population.
Citizenship and Immigration
I continue to quote from the report of the meeting between the delegates from Newfoundland and the cabinet:
3.	Family allowances on the same basis as white population and applied in the normal way wherever possible.
I believe those allowances are paid, but I do not know how.
4.	Land reserves for settlements and trapping lines are set up, by arrangements with the provincial government.
I do not believe any such provision has been made.
5.	Free conservation projects, fishing projects, handicrafts and other aids are undertaken in their behalf.
I do not believe anything has been done in that connection.
6.	The federal government sets up trading posts, where there are no satisfactory arrangements for trading by private interests. This is done to help Indians eventually to buy and market co-operatively themselves.
I shall not refer to the other matters of land tax, income tax, or their right to use intoxicating liquors; I think that is natural.
Indians do not receive old age pensions but relief for the aged is provided.
That is the statement we were given in 1947. I do not know whether the position has changed since that time, but I feel certain from what I have heard that many of these provisions have not become effective. It may be through an inability to carry them out, but I would appreciate the Prime Minister or the Minister of Mines and Resources clarifying the position, if that is a fair question, because I have received some questions about the matter.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes, that is a fair question, Mr. Chairman. The answers that were given at that time, as to the effect of the Indian Act, were correct. As the hon. member knows, those general acts in Canada do not apply to Newfoundland until they have been proclaimed. Negotiations are proceeding between the department responsible at the moment and the Department of Mines and Resources, with a view to proclaiming the Indian Act in Newfoundland, and attempting to determine what parts of the Indian Act it might not be appropriate to proclaim.
It is our understanding that so far such Indians as there were in Newfoundland were a part of the general community. Now there is a question as to whether it will be preferable to put them back under the restrictions which exist under the Indian Act and give them the benefits of the Indian Act or to allow them to continue as general members of the community with the ordinary rights and responsibilities of citizenship. Those are

Citizenship and Immigration matters which are under consideration at the present time and it is because of the fact that the Indian Act referred to in these answers has not come into effect under the terms of union that there is this apparent discrepancy between what is the practice at this moment and the terms of the answers that were given on the assumption that the Indian Act would be in force.


Gordon Francis Higgins: If the act is proclaimed, I take it that medical services will be given free to the Indians. I cannot understand this answer of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Possibly he might clarify that. He says they are going to continue to be given.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If the Indian Act is proclaimed, an administration of Indian affairs will have to be set up; and that administration would have to provide in the territory over which it has jurisdiction the same services that are provided for groups of Indians in other parts of Canada.


Gordon Francis Higgins: The province is carrying it on at the present time. Is that the idea?


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: That is because up to the present time the Indian Act has not been proclaimed and because there has not been found common ground with the government of Newfoundland as to which parts it would be practicable to attempt to apply and which parts would not fit the existing situation.


Gordon Francis Higgins: When will the act likely be proclaimed?


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: Those negotiations are in process and I think the officials are proceeding diligently to try to get the basis of a common understanding as to how the situation can best be taken care of.


Gordon Francis Higgins: That is fine.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: I want to say just a word in support of the idea advanced by the leader of the opposition. I refer to the treatment of d.p.'s after they have come to this country. First, however, I want to pay my respects to those concerned and to convey my thanks for the courtesy and fairness with which I have always been treated by Mr. Jolliffe and Mr. Smith in the offices down there; but there is an incident that I wish to mention, and it is one which I have heard is duplicated in many places.
I refer to the unkind treatment which people not familiar with our language are receiving in some of our offices. In Calgary we have a fine man at the head of the office, and he is doing a splendid job. I know that the department cannot carry to all its employees the idea that they should be purveyors of peace, light and justice; but in that


office a certain incident occurred. I speak of this particular case because it concerns a d.p. woman who came out here and happened to get a job as a maid in my daughter's house. She could speak no English. She now speaks English quite well. She stayed her year, so there is not a word of criticism about her. Her husband was anxious to join her, and I took some part in arranging that he should come. I had to do that because this woman of about thirty years of age was received in that office with rudeness which was almost brutal. My daughter went down with her, obtained an interpreter and herself received extremely rude treatment there. The papers were thrown at them and they were told "Fill these out, but who is going to pay for it?" and so on. That was none of their business at that moment. I am not blaming anyone in the department but I am making a suggestion. Bear in mind, Mr. Chairman, the effect upon poorer persons, lacking the ability to speak the language, when they are received in that manner. The effect may last throughout the time of their residence in this country.
I have no doubt that bulletins have been issued from the head office but I am making the suggestion that perhaps a little more care should be taken to see that the civil servant who makes the actual contact will be a little bit more patient and will have a little bit more kindness in his soul; because these first impressions made on people of that type may be lasting ones, I fear. I do not intend to discuss communism, but dissatisfaction is the ground in which it grows. It seems to me that we should have some schooling for these people who first make contact with these immigrants who come to our shores.


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: I thank the hon. member for mentioning this matter. A training in courtesy is given to these employees of the department of immigration. I am told that over 30 million cases have been handled by the officials of that department. That figure surprised me, and I was given this explanation. It includes even our American friends and neighbours who often come here several times. But over a very long period during which 30 million cases have been handled by officers of the department, there have been only fifteen cases in which, discourtesy having been reported and investigations having been made, it was found that the facts required a reprimand to the official concerned.
But I think that any Canadian who knows of any case of discourteous treatment in circumstances such as those referred to by the hon. member for Calgary West would be doing a service to Canada by bringing it to the attention of the department here. We

all realize that the impressions made by our public servants on those who come here either as immigrants or as visitors should be a good one, in keeping with the mentality and the habits of the Canadian people. Those who represent the Canadian people in the contacts of officialdom with immigrants or visitors should give a proper impression of the kind of people Canadians are. When any of them do not do that, I think it would be a service to have the conduct of the delinquent brought to the attention of the department for which he acts, so that the circumstances may be investigated and a repetition prevented.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I entirely agree with the Prime Minister. In this case I am pleading guilty. I did not bring the matter to the attention of the department. It is my fault that their attention was not brought to it. I made inquiries as to the individual, found that he had a wife and family, that he would have difficulty in getting along, and that if I had reported this incident he would have been fired. I am at fault. I just could not do it; that is all. I am glad to hear about these courtesy schools. I would not want to be the cause of some poor chap losing his job. He might have been tired or something like that; but I know of the facts of which I speak.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Believe it or not, Mr. Chairman, this is a bouquet, and if it is not spurned, I may offer another one in a few moments. A few nights ago when we were discussing the estimates of the citizenship branch a number of questions were asked from this side of the house to which there seemed to be some difficulty in getting answers, if I may put it that way. Hon. members who were in the house at that time will recall that we got almost to the point of having a bit of innocent fun out of it. However, after it was all over, I, for one, did feel that some things that were said but even more so some things that were not said were unfair to the citizenship branch.
Since that time I have had drawn to my attention the booklets referred to that night, which have been published, and the kind of work the citizenship branch is doing in the field of helping immigrants to learn the English or French language, and to help them to learn about our land, our history, our political set-up and all those things that are a part of our Canadian tradition.
From what has been drawn to my attention it seems to me that these people are doing an excellent job. It is the sort of story we tried to get out the other night. At this time I should like to pay tribute to what is being 45781-166J
Citizenship and Immigration done, and to express the hope that in the new Department of Citizenship and Immigration the excellent work being carried on by the citizenship branch will be pursued. '


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Deputy minister.
Stanley Howard Knowles: As I said a moment ago, if my first bouquet was not spurned I would have another one to offer on section 4. It seems to me that when this section is passed it will present a problem for the government, the answer to which I do not know, because it will have to make up its mind in which department to put the present deputy minister of mines and resources. Tributes have been paid to people in the immigration branch, in which I wish to join, but-


Arthur Leroy Smith: He goes into the pie department.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -I should like also to pay tribute to the work being done by the present deputy minister of mines and resources. I do not know which department the Prime Minister has in mind for him. He could do a good job in the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, he would be most valuable in the Department of Resources and Development-


Gordon Graydon: Or household economics.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes-oh, excellent, in household economics. But I think if I had any say in the matter-not that the Prime Minister is asking me for it-I would like to see him in this human department, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I do wish to say, however, that we are most pleased with the excellent job the present deputy has been doing.


Mr. McLure:: Subsection 2 refers to "officers, clerks and employees". Figures given the other day show that at the present time in the Department of Mines and Resources 2,000 civil servants are employed, and that in addition there are a large number of temporary employees, amounting to about 5,000. We have no definite figure as to how many are employed. Some check can be made however by considering the amount of money paid to temporary assistants.
When the new department is set up will all the employees be civil servants? Will it be necessary to carry the employees who are described as temporaries? I understand the civil service commission will make a number of appointments. Why not let it make all the appointments and take this matter away from government patronage? My understanding is that today to a great extent these temporary

Citizenship and Immigration employees are used in matters of political patronage. When the new department is set up I suggest that all appointments should bd made by the civil service commission, thus making all the appointees civil servants instead of having a large number of temporary employees.


George Matheson Murray: May I refer to some temporary employees in the northern sections of my constituency. Every summer survey parties proceed out either on boundary locations or to lay out townships and they employ numbers of young men from the range country and the villages to serve as packers, cooks and surveyors. I would suppose they are temporary employees. I am sure there would not be any political significance in the employment of these men who are doing heavy work. They go out to fight the black flies and mosquitoes, and work all summer for the Canadian government, receiving very little pay for it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Duties, powers and functions of minister.
Mr. Harkness:: This would seem to be an omnibus section which assigns to the new department those functions which formerly came under the headings of naturalization, citizenship, Indian affairs, immigration and colonization, "and not by law assigned to any other department of the government of Canada".
I have in mind the health and hospitalization of Indians and Eskimos, which comes under the Department of National Health and Welfare. It seems to me a considerable amount of duplication of effort, and difficulties of one kind and another are bound to arise because that part of the Indian administration concerned with health is under one department while the remainder of it is under this new department.
Is there no possibility that matters related to Indians and Eskimos be placed under one department? It could be either in the Department of National Health and Welfare -and in my opinion that is where it should be-or in this new department.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Formerly the health
services were with the Indian affairs branch. When the Department of National Health and Welfare was set up it was felt that the services of the personnel of that department could be used for the administration of the health service of the Indians, and that there would be a saving by having them perform those duties rather than have a separate health service in the Department of Mines and Resources.
My impression is that that has proved to be the case. The Department of National Health and Welfare would not be able to dispense with many of its civil servants if it did not have this responsibility with respect to the health service of the Indians, and it would mean a larger staff if this health service were handled by two separate departments.
I can assure the hon. member that, if it were found that placing the health service for the Indians in this department would cut down the expense, that would be done; but the advice we got was that there would be less duplication by having these health services administered by the officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If that is correct, I would agree that the Department of National Health and Welfare is the proper one to handle the health of Indians and Eskimos. But has any consideration been given to putting the entire Indian affairs branch under the Department of National Health and Welfare? From what I have been able to gather there would seem to be a certain amount of duplication and certain minor difficulties due to the fact that one part of the Indian administration is under one department and the remainder under another. Perhaps, as I said before, the Department of National Health and Welfare should handle the whole thing.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There might possibly be some other services that could be handled by the Department of National Health and Welfare-for instance, the education of the Indians. There are administrative problems to be considered. The Indians have quite extensive resources that are administered for their benefit. Many of these material problems are not of the kind dealt with by the Department of National Health and Welfare and it would require something different from that set-up to perform the administrative functions that are necessary. On the whole it was felt that a proper division would be to have the health services the responsibility of the Department of National Health and Welfare and to have the band funds, the band lands and the administration and distribution of treaty money the responsibility of a department that was organized as a sort of business administration department.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 6 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
On the title.
John Lambert Gibson: Would the Prime Minister not consider making the title of this department "the Department of Citizenship, Immigration and Indian Affairs"?

Of course that makes a rather long title and it might be difficult if we had to address the minister as the minister of citizenship, immigration and Indian affairs, but I think the Indians themselves might feel that a certain prestige would follow if that name were included in the name of the department.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The suggestion was made in the resolution stage, but it was felt that, in view of the other suggestion that the title of the Department of Secretary of State for External Affairs should be shortened, we should not be creating another department with a long title.


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


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: the second reading of Bill No. 214, to amend the Salaries Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Salaries of ministers.
Gordon Graydon: After the Prime Minister's generous statement of a few moments ago I think it will be understood that I have no pecuniary interest in this matter, but I should like to ask him what this shuffling of cabinet positions will really mean in dollars and cents to the Canadian people?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member will see, this bill provides for the repeal of four salaries and the establishment of three salaries. The salaries in the case of two positions that existed before have not been paid for the last two or three years, and the new salaries will not be paid until the appointments are made. The hon. member asks for an estimate of the additional expense. There will be the salary of a minister when the acts are proclaimed and a minister is appointed and there will be a deputy minister who may or may not be someone at present in the service of one of the three departments concerned, mines and resources, reconstruction and supply or secretary of state. The salary of a deputy minister is generally somewhat larger than the salary of the head of a branch, I think generally at least $2,000 or so more. I do not think other civil servants will be required. I have looked over the details in the estimates and I would hope that with
Salaries Act
a careful examination of the activities that will have to be performed it might be found that there are enough civil servants in the existing departments to discharge the responsibilities of the new departments. I cannot be any more specific than that. Inevitably there will be the salary of a minister and the salary of a deputy minister, if that position requires the appointment of an additional official, or the difference between the salary of a deputy minister and the salary being paid to an existing official.


Gordon Graydon: That would mean the additional amount would be the salary of the new cabinet minister and the difference between the director's salary and that paid to a deputy minister, plus the salaries that would have to be paid to civil servants by virtue of the new portfolios being set up. I think the experience in most departments is that, when you appoint a chief, human nature being what it is he tends to set up an army to lead. I am not suggesting that there is any more desire to do that in one section of the country than there is in another, but I think it is up to parliament to see that that is not always done.
I know the Prime Minister has in mind the appointment of a minister from the province of Alberta. I reiterate that that is a matter which deserves commendation because after all that province is deserving of cabinet representation on a very high scale. There are problems by way of development and progress requiring the close attention, of someone in the government in succession to that very important figure who is now in the other place, the Hon. James A. MacKinnon. I suggest to the Prime Minister that the question of providing a cabinet minister from Alberta surely ought to be able to be handled without adding more expense by way of another portfolio. I do not want to repeat the necessity of keeping the cabinet down to a reasonable size, but I am most serious in suggesting that I think we can go very much further than public opinion would prompt us to go by expanding the cabinet ranks at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In this section the salary of each of the ministers, whether we are giving it or taking it away, is $10,000. In the estimates we find in each case that the salary and motor car allowance of the minister are listed together as $12,000, and it is indicated that the total amount is statutory. Can the Prime Minister tell me whether the provision for the motor car allowance is provided by statute somewhere else than in this act?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes, a provision was made in the estimates of 1931 for a motor car allowance for any minister of the crown. I

Salaries Act
believe hon. members will find the reference in Hansard of August 1, 1931. The same question presented itself to me, and I asked to be assured that nothing else was necessary so that if and when any minister was appointed there would be the same provision for him as for any other member of the cabinet. I was shown a vote in August, 1931, which makes provision for the allowance of $2,000 for every member of the cabinet for that year and for future years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This may be only a technicality, but I confess it puzzles me a bit. I think the Prime Minister understood the point I made before, namely, that the full $12,000 is listed in the estimates as statutory. In other words, both the salary of $10,000 and the motor car allowance of $2,000 are provided by statute.


Mr. Abbott:: A vote is a statute.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is no question about the $10,000, but is the item of August 1, 1931, a statute? The Prime Minister called it an estimate.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is a vote which is a statute because it is voted in the schedule to which effect is given by the appropriation statute of that year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall look it up some time.
The other question I wish to ask has to do with the salaries of deputy ministers. How are they provided? One of the reasons I ask the question is that on looking through the estimates I find that, although every minister has the same salary, whether it is the busy Minister of Finance or somebody else, so far as deputies are concerned there is quite a variation.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that under statute, by order in council, or how?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Deputy ministers are appointed by order in council, and the statute authorizes the governor in council to fix the salary of these appointees. That is provided in this case by section 4 of the bill we have just passed. Subsection 1 of that section reads:
The governor in council may appoint an officer who shall be called the deputy minister of citizenship and immigration who shall be the deputy head of the department and who shall hold office during pleasure.
All other officials are appointed according to law, that is to say, by the civil service commission.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is section 4, subsection 1, of the previous bill which gives authority to appoint the deputy of that department, but-


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: But no salary can be paid until an appropriation has been provided.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, it comes in the estimates, but they do vary from about $10,000 to $15,000.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes, that is so.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Up to $17,500.


Gordon Graydon: Is the floor $10,000 and the ceiling $15,000?


Douglas Charles Abbott: 


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: A report was made by the Gordon commission on the appropriate salaries for these officials appointed by order in council who are not subject to the Civil Service Act. I will not say that a ceiling and floor were provided, but each department was listed, and a suggestion was made as to what would be the appropriate salary for that department. If the hon. member will look at the Gordon report he will see that the situation in each department was examined and a recommendation made with respect thereto.


Gordon Graydon: I take it from what the Minister of Finance says there must be at least one deputy minister who is getting more than the cabinet ministers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They do the work.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Of course this is public knowledge because the report was tabled in the house. The president of the national research council and the deputy minister of finance are on the $17,500 basis.


Gordon Graydon: That means they are worth more than cabinet ministers.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the same understanding.
Bill read the third time and passed.



VETERANS LAND ACT


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 218, to amend the Veterans Land Act, 1942.


Mr. Brooks:: Did I understand that the minister was going to make a statement on the bill?

Veterans Land Act


Milton Fowler Gregg: I am prepared to make a statement either at this stage or in committee, as the house prefers. I am in the hands of members of the house.


Clarence Gillis: I imagine it would be better if the minister made his statement now. Many [DOT]of us have speeches to make.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I am happy to comply with my hon. friend's wish. In presenting the resolution I stated that the principle behind it was greater simplicity and flexibility in administration. Certain doubts have arisen as to the existence of statutory authority in the act as it now stands for the putting into effect of some things which ordinary business and agricultural practice would indicate to be desirable and to be in the best interests of veterans under the act and the country at large. The proposed changes are for the purpose of removing these doubts, and also to permit the administration to cope with certain conditions which did not exist, and could not have been easily anticipated, when the act was originally framed. As hon. members will recall, that was back in 1942. Probably the most important improvements proposed by this bill are those designed to permit the director to effect the sale of property on behalf of a veteran, and to permit the redisbursement of the sale proceeds for the purchase of other property, or for improvements to the veteran's property when that appears to be in the best interests of the veteran and when at the same time it will improve or maintain the security under the contract. The changes proposed will make it legally possible to carry out normal business transactions, and will assist the veteran in the improvement of his property; and consequently, of course, will improve his chances of success.
The bill provides ample safeguards against transactions of a purely speculative nature. A sale and substitution, where the whole property is involved, will not be permitted more than once. Any surplus created as a result of the transaction will be applied to reduce the veteran's debt. Sales will be made only on a cash basis, except where the director requires the property for the settlement of another veteran and the first veteran is willing to part with it at its appraised value. For example, the bill will make possible the disposal of matured trees, surplus buildings, sand, gravel or minerals and reinvestment of the proceeds in improvements such as new buildings, fences, the clearing of land and so on. It will enable the sale of part of a property, not well suited to the enterprise, and the purchase of more suitable adjoining land, thereby improving the veteran's unit. It will permit the sale of the entire property where it is found unsuitable
or where the veteran has been moved by his employer to another part of the country, and the use of the proceeds for the purchase of another property suited to the veteran's needs and requirements. It is believed that this will do much to improve and round out properties, and will make it possible for a veteran settled under the act to continue his settlement when and where circumstances make a move to another locality imperative or desirable.
Somewhat related to the first proposal mentioned is one which will permit the director to release to a veteran part of a property which, at the time of the contract with the veteran, represented value substantially in excess of that required to protect the director's investment. This situation exists of course, where the veteran made a substantial payment of his own money at the time the property was purchased, or where the veteran had a sizeable equity in the property for one reason or another before he approached the Veterans Land Act for assistance. The bill will permit the release to a veteran, at his request, of that part of a property which represented surplus value in excess of the price paid at the time the property was purchased.
I know a number of hon. members have received complaints from veterans who have been unable to secure refunds consequent upon the sale of their properties at prices equal to or greater than the sale prices to the veterans. As explained to the veterans so affected, the trouble here lay not with the administration but in the wording of the act. I am sure hon. members will be glad to learn, therefore, that changes here proposed will remove the legal difficulties which exist in that regard.
Hon. members will also recall that in order to have as many homes as possible ready and available for our service men and women on their return from overseas, an extensive building program on small holding project properties was inaugurated early in 1945. Owing to conditions which existed at that time the cost of these houses, including the necessary remedial work which was much discussed in this house, was substantially higher that what was considered to be their true value. To ensure that these houses would be available to veterans as soon as completed and at a fair price, cabinet approval was given for their sale at a price which would represent value rather than cost, such price to be fixed by a committee composed of the deputy minister of my department and the director of the Veterans Land Act. After these sales were made

Veterans Land Act
questions arose as to the validity of this procedure and of contracts made in accordance with it. One of the proposals in this bill, therefore, is for the purpose of curing this possible deficiency and of ensuring that veterans who hold agreements for sale for properties, the sale price of which was less than cost to the director, may be given a good and sufficient title in accordance with the terms of their existing contracts.
The other changes proposed are mainly for the purpose of removing any doubts that may have arisen as to the exact meaning of some sections of the act, and to broaden the scope of some sections which experience has shown to be unnecessarily restrictive.
Hon. members, of course, are fully aware of the ramifications of the land settlement operations carried on under the Veterans Land Act and, I am sure, will all the more readily appreciate that the act as originally enacted could not have been designed to meet all contingencies which might arise during those operations. I might add here that these amendments are brought forward by the administration, of course in co-operation with the veterans most vitally concerned as well as the veteran community and those interested in agriculture generally, to provide a greater flexibility in the administration of the act. As may be expected, since the act was passed in 1942 experience has shown the need for supplementary provisions to cope with many real problems; and it is to the solution of these problems that this legislation is mainly directed.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, the minister has taken a short time to explain this bill, and I think has made its purpose clear to most of us. He said the object of the legislation was to give the administration of the act greater simplicity, and that he thought these amendments were in the best interests of our veterans. He also said that the act as originally adopted did not meet all the contingencies that have arisen since. That, of course, is true of most veteran legislation. We have found as time has gone by that practically all the veteran legislation needed to be amended at some time or other.
For this reason, as I have stated in this house on previous occasions, I feel there is great need for a committee on veterans affairs. I offer no apology for bringing up this matter again, though I have mentioned it already on a good many occasions. I do not think any committee of this house could do better work, or any committee in the past has done better work, than a committee on veterans affairs. If these contingencies that arise all the time could be discussed in such a committee, and if suggested amendments

to legislation could receive such consideration, I think they would be given far more attention than is possible here, in the last days of the session. That may not have been as necessary in connection with this legislation as in connection with other acts, but I think the general principle is sound. So I hope when another session is called the government and the minister will agree that it is advisable to set up this committee.
The minister said that new difficulties were arising all the time, in spite of the elaborate set-up we have spreading all over the country. I agree with that statement. For instance, while I believe our educational program has been a great success, we all know that some men who attended universities probably would have been much better off on farms, or taking technical training. If a man wishes to take up some other work than that in which he is now engaged, this act makes provision for him to do so. I have no doubt there are many men who went on farms who have found that they would have been better engaged in other work. I believe the act makes provision for meeting this contingency as well.
While I was going through the act, I noted many points. For instance, there is a new provision in this act so far as eligibility is concerned. Provision is made for a man to change his locality. The act was rather rigid previously, and the man who took a small holding in Toronto or some other city, then found he was transferred to Ottawa, Halifax, or Saint John, found himself in difficulty. Arrangements can be made now, however, for him to sell his property in Toronto and purchase another in Halifax.
The minister spoke about the small holdings. Frankly, I think most of the trouble with the Veterans Land Act has been in the small holdings branch of that department. I remember there were grave doubts in the committee as to whether the Department of Veterans Affairs should go into the housing business. As the minister has pointed out, there was a scarcity of houses. A great number of returned men were looking for houses, and this practically compelled the Department of Veterans Affairs to undertake the housing proposition. There has been a lot of criticism of these small holdings, especially from veterans who took up properties near large cities, who found that the minimum of one-half acre was not satisfactory. I believe this fact, in itself, has kept a great many veterans from establishing themselves under the small holdings provisions of the Veterans Land Act. I believe that is something which could be investigated by the minister's department.

I was interested in reading a report of the Department of Veterans Affairs for 1948. It contains one paragraph which I think sets out this problem quite well. It says:
The agricultural development of small holdings along the lines visualized by parliament is a responsibility challenging the best efforts of the administration.
I have no doubt that the efforts of the administration have been well challenged, but there is a grave question in the minds of the people of this country as to whether this challenge has been met.
Involving as it does the development of a new way of life and its integration into the economic and social set-up. very careful thought and planning is necessary, and follow-up over a long period is essential for success. Results to date are most encouraging in spite of the fact that to many settlers the acquisition of a small holding was, in the first instance, only with the idea of getting themselves a home.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that was the main idea in the mind of a great many veterans. I feel also that there were many veterans who, having a permanent job of some type, felt they would like to carry on some farming activity on the side. At first they were quite enthusiastic, but they found there were other obligations which interfered with it. Some of them found they would like to entertain themselves at some amusement, such as ball games, playing golf, and so on. On many of these small holdings it will be found that, while a small garden has been put into operation, much of the land is not being used at all. I believe the act does provide that, if a man has too much land, he can sell part of it through the board to someone else who desires to build on it.
There was another matter which was frequently mentioned in our committee, and that was the legal costs to the veteran, and the long delay which was often experienced in transferring property. In some cases it was thought that the costs were too great. In certain localities a few lawyers seemed to have a virtual monopoly on this work for which they obtained large fees. I believe the minister's department should carefully investigate this matter to ensure that, so far as the local end of these transfers is concerned, they are put through as quickly as possible.
Another point which should be mentioned, which has a bearing on this situation, is not so much a problem of the veterans affairs department as of the postmaster general. I have received complaints from men who have settled on veterans' farms, as well as other people in the locality, that the lack of a daily mail service was keenly felt. I know that veterans are often inclined to leave a community in the country in which it is impossible to have a proper mail service. As
Veterans Land Act
I say, this is not the responsibility of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, but I hope he will take it up with his colleagues. Neither a farmer nor any other person living in this country should have a poor mail service. I believe the post office system is out of date. The Post Office Department demands that there be four persons per mile before giving a daily service. This regulation is reacting against many of the people living in the country, as well as against many of our returned men.
I do not think there is anything further I wish to say, Mr. Speaker. I do give the bill general approval, and I think it will correct a good many mistakes and shortcomings in the old legislation. I shall close on the same note on which I started, and that is that, while there are not so many veterans' problems to be brought to the attention of the house now, still the veterans of this country feel they are entitled to a standing committee of this house. This would enable the veterans in the house to deal with veterans' problems. Bills such as this, upon being brought before this House of Commons, would be referred to this committee and given careful consideration.


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, in 1946 section 9 of the Veterans Land Act, 1942, was repealed and a new section 9 inserted. It set forth the conditions under which veterans could receive assistance in setting themselves up on the land, and providing themselves with the necessary equipment. This loan is repayable over a period not to exceed 25 years.
There is one matter in this connection which I desire to bring to the attention of the minister. Perhaps it applies solely to my own province of Saskatchewan. In that province farms of large acreage have been springing up on a co-operative basis. Some of them are managed entirely by groups of veterans. I understand that the individual veteran on such a farm has been able to receive his grant; that is to say, as an individual, even though he is part of the co-operative enterprise, but apparently the veteran on a co-operative farm is not entitled to the loan other veterans receive who buy a farm upon an individual basis. My plea to the minister is that the act should be amended so that this condition would be changed. The aid in the form of loans now available to the individual should be available to the individual even when he has partners in the enterprise. In Saskatchewan there are large acreages of land which are now available; and when I say there is land available, I mean improved farms. There are farms there running into one or two thousand acres; after all a farm of sixteen

Veterans Land Act
hundred acres is not exceptional in Saskatchewan. These farms are too valuable to be purchased by the average individual; and at any rate they represent an acreage too great to be taken care of by a single purchaser. I think some of these farms could form the basis of the kind of co-operative enterprises that I have described and which have already been set up, and could be purchased by groups of veterans so inclined, provided that they have the necessary financial resources. My plea to the government is that this money should be available to these people so that they could purchase such farms. I know that the soundness of the security is a matter of importance to the government. I think, however, that the soundness of the security would not be impaired but rather enhanced by any such arrangement, by carrying out the co-operative idea rather than the idea of individual ownership.
These veterans could establish themselves under favourable conditions with partners of their own choosing who would be congenial to them. The overhead expenses of these farms could be cut down, as they are now being cut down on those which have been established on the same basis, by the assistance which they could give one another in their work and by the use of machinery owned in common. A congenial social life-something which, by the way, is important in those large areas, having regard to the climate we have, particularly in the winter-would be available, something which is now impossible on the average individual farm. That is one of the reasons why some of our rural population in Saskatchewan spend most of their winters in the nearest town. They want to enjoy the company of others of their own kind.
I mention these matters because I believe they should appeal to the government from the point of view of an enhanced rather than a lessened security for the return of the money lent, as well as from the point of view of rehabilitation of veterans under favourable conditions, thus affording an additional prospect of success. I am sure that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg) has had many cases of men breaking down under certain conditions-solitude and plugging along alone -whereas groups of men, following the old tradition of the army, get along a good deal better if they are surrounded by some of their buddies. I think that this matter might be the subject of discussion in a committee on veterans affairs, and I should like to back up the plea of the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) that such a committee be set up and that that be one of the subjects referred to it.
rMr. Knight.]
In this connection, I may say that there is a man who I think could be useful to such a committee as a witness. He is Mr. Chapman, who is now director of co-operative farming in Saskatchewan. I believe the Canadian Legion in Saskatchewan and the co-operative farm conference have gone on record as favouring this particular proposal of mine. The minister may know-and he can tell us if he will-whether representations have been made to him, and to what extent such representations have been made to him in this regard. At any rate, that is my plea. I hope the government will give consideration to this matter of making these loans under the act available to veterans farming or wishing to farm on a co-operative basis.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I was not in the chamber when the minister spoke; I was attending a meeting of a committee. But I may say that, generally speaking, I am in favour of the amendments contained in this bill, although it appears to me that as a result of these amendments we are possibly getting further and further away from the original purpose of the Veterans Land Act, having regard to veterans and small holdings. The original idea was to settle a veteran on a small holding, with a house, so that he might use that land in order to supplement his income. As a result of these amendments he may perhaps dispose of the land and just have the house left. That certainly was not the original intention of the Veterans Land Act. Nevertheless, if it is to the benefit of the veteran to do that, I personally would not object.
To me there appears to be some confusion in these amendments as to whether or not a veteran is entitled to recover his down payment when land is sold. We shall, however, have a chance to ask questions on that point when we get into committee on the sections.
There is one other point that I hope the minister will be able to discuss, although perhaps it really does not come under this bill. It is the matter of whether or not veterans may be eligible for the grant when they settle on crown lands; and I am speaking particularly of the special areas. I have taken this matter up with the department on several occasions but so far have not been able to get a satisfactory answer. I have been told that the matter is under discussion. In view of the fact that last spring letters were written stating that a certain decision had been reached, and that action would be forthcoming in the near future, I hope that the minister will be able to clarify that point.


Mr. J. H. Dickey (Halifax):: Just before the house goes into committee, Mr. Speaker, may I say I do not think that the motion for

second reading of this bill should pass without somebody saying a word in appreciation, first, of the legislation itself and, second, of the manner in which it has been administered by the department under the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg). I do not think any words of mine could describe the fine results that have been achieved under this legislation better than the figures, which I should like to put on Hansard, as to the actual number of houses which have been built under the Veterans Land Act in the various areas of Canada.
Under the individual housing program of the Veterans Land Act, up to September 30, 1949-and this will be the date for all the provinces that I will mention-in Nova Scotia 313 houses were built; in Prince Edward Island, 96; in New Brunswick, 364; in Quebec, 921; in eastern Ontario, 2,419; in western Ontario, 1,931; in Manitoba, 474; in Saskatchewan, 203; in Alberta, 725; and in British Columbia, 1,304. In the providing of adequate inexpensive housing for the veterans of this country I think that is an achievement of which this parliament and the government can be justly proud. I did not think it was proper that the motion for the second reading of the amendments to this act should pass without something being said in this regard.
While I am on my feet I should like to comment on two or three of the observations of the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks). He stated that in his opinion the department had had a great deal of trouble with small holdings. I believe it is true that certain troubles were experienced; but the department, the minister and the responsible officers did not shrink from those troubles. The manner in which they were met has in great part been responsible for the tremendous success of this legislation.
In addition the hon. member repeated the argument that there should be a committee on veterans affairs. All members of the house who were here at the second to last session of the last parliament will remember the work done by the veterans affairs committee at that time, and also the work done by previous sessional committees on veterans affairs. The day may come when a sessional committee may have to be set up; but I do think there is no need at the present time for a permanent standing committee on veterans affairs. I for one approve of the government's decision not to take that step.
It does seem to me that these repeated urgings from the official opposition for the setting up of various permanent committees indicate that there must be in that party a feeling that we should get away from the
Veterans Land Act
principles of parliamentary government and accept the principle of committee government, of which I do not approve.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Is the hon. member aware that practically every veterans organization in Canada has requested the setting up of a parliamentary committee? It is not the urgings of the opposition, at all; it is the urging of the veterans themselves.


John Horace Dickey: The urgings we hear in the house are those of the opposition, and I presume they are responsible for the principle underlying the suggestion they make.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It is the veterans.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to detain the house for long, but I do wish to give my support to this bill and the amendments it proposes to the Veterans Land Act. I am pleased to note that the Department of Veterans Affairs, particularly, is willing to bring in amendments arising from experience, with a view to making legislation work to the better advantage of the veterans. I should hope that some other departments of government might learn a lesson from the Department of Veterans Affairs and recommend amendments to legislation when such legislation does not work out satisfactorily, or requires amendment.
I would support the proposal of the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) that at the next session of the house we have a special committee on veterans affairs. As the hon. member has said, I believe that is the wish of all the major veterans organizations in this country, and such a committee would play a useful part in assisting the government in the further development of veteran legislation.
I am pleased to see these amendments because I believe they will be beneficial to some men in my constituency. I have known of men taking up some holdings under the act, and then having to transfer their employment, or having to transfer their locations of residence because of health reasons, employment reasons, or for some other unforeseen cause. For that reason I am sure these amendments will assist a great many veterans in Canada and correct a situation which requires correction.
I could not take my seat without again emphasizing my hope, and the hope of the veterans I represent, that the government will see fit in the near future to reduce small holdings to half an acre, and make it possible for thousands of veterans to take advantage of this excellent legislation. I am pleased, too, to see the qualifications for application under the act extended to this

Veterans Land Act
group of pensioners who are pensioned on account of disability received in any theatre of service.
That is all I have to say at the moment.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1.
Mr. Wright:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words on this section. I did not say anything when Mr. Speaker was in the chair, because there were certain questions I wanted to ask.
In my view this is a good bill, and makes the act more workable than it was before. It does raise certain questions, but before going into those I should like to comment on the general principle of these small holdings, and the idea behind them when the act was passed in 1942. Many hon. members here today served on that committee, and they will know that the idea of small holdings as it was put forth at that time was not intended as a housing scheme. It was only after the veterans began to come back from overseas, and the scarcity of houses developed, that the scheme became a housing scheme. It seems to me there is a difference between the two, but that as yet the department has not been able to resolve that difference.
There is a demand for housing and a demand for small holdings. In between the two we have many holdings the classification of which it is difficult to define. I believe the department will continue to have difficulty until there is some amendment in the act to distinguish between veterans housing and small holdings. The setting up of that division may offer some difficulty. However, unless there is some division there will always be that marginal ground where it will be difficult to decide what veterans should do with their holdings-whether they should be able to dispose of part of them, or whether they should be retained as part of the holding of the veterans.
The veteran now on a small holding may sell part of that holding. There are many veterans who have holdings of two or three acres. If they subdivide and sell part of those holdings, immediately there will be a demand on the part of veterans coming in under the act to get holdings smaller than the two or three acres available at the present time. What is the position to be in that connection?
If under this amendment to the act the subdividing of a small holding is allowed, then quite rightly other veterans who may
[Mr. Herrldge.l
be coming under the act will ask for smaller holdings. They will ask for a reduction to the half-acre holdings.
I should like also to say a word with respect to the matter raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon. That is a problem we are going to meet in certain parts of Canada as time goes on, the matter of large farms going on the market for sale. In my own constituency I know of several large farms of five, six or seven sections, in good areas which, because of the desire of the owners to retire, are going on the market. It is good land; but no single veteran can hope to purchase that amount of land. Where a group of veterans wish to get together to form a co-operative in order to farm some land that might become available under section 9, they could purchase it and operate it more successfully than they could as individuals. I think some consideration should be given to amending the act to allow that development to take place. It is a natural development that is going on and if it is successful I think it should be encouraged. I have some other questions with regard to other sections which I shall bring up later.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I wonder if the hon. member for Melfort would mind if his questions were answered under section 3? Perhaps that would keep things more in order. This section merely brings the provisions of this act into conformity with the amendment to the Pension Act in so far as pensioners' applications are concerned.


Mr. Hatfield:: Why should a veteran who has a position in a town or city have to go outside the limits in order to take up a small holding?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I should like to deal with that question under section 3.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: How many more veterans does the minister think will be brought in under the new qualifications for eligibility?


Milton Fowler Gregg: It is impossible to make anything like an exact estimate. As hon. members realize, veterans have made application from time to time and have been told, "We are sorry but we cannot do it under the present act; perhaps some day it will be amended". I think we can form a pretty good guess when we consider that approximately 2,200 pensioners were listed as having service of less than one year. It would be a fairly small percentage of that number, perhaps somewhere around 100.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: When a veteran has exhausted his re-establishment credit and qualifies for land under this legislation must he pay back all the credit he has received?


Milton Fowler Gregg: That matter does not properly come under any section of the bill, but I shall deal with it now. This bill does not change that situation at all. A veteran is permitted to repay his re-establishment credit and then apply under the Veterans Land Act. That provision was in existence before and it will continue.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I have in mind a veteran who has made an application which has been accepted. He had seven years' service, all of it overseas with the exception of six months, and he is being asked to pay back some $1,400. He has a little business established in a country village and he wants to build his house there. However, he was told that he would have to go out a mile or two and buy three acres of land. That would be detrimental to the carrying on of his business. Another complaint is that the longer service a man has had, the more he must pay back. Of course, he has received a larger re-establishment credit, but there seems to be discrimination as between the man with long service and the man who came in only at the last moment. Would there be anything under this bill that would reduce the amount that a man would have to pay back? In this case this man will be forced to sell his business in order to get started again.


Milton Fowler Gregg: There are no provisions for that in this bill. While I do not want to do it now, I think I could convince my hon. friend of the equity of the present provision. However, it does not properly come under this bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Determination of cost to director.
Percy Ellis Wright: This section provides that the cost to the director shall not be less than the amount actually expended. I believe there have been occasions when the director has had to sell property for less than the actual cost. This section would seem to preclude that possibility and I am wondering if its provisions will be retroactive. There have been properties where the cost has been written down because of an increase in the cost of materials and that sort of thing.


Mr. Mutch:: Is the hon. member referring to the small holdings?


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: This is not the section, but provision is being made to ensure that the write-down shall not be charged against the property.
Veterans Land Act


Mr. Blair:: In cases where there is no agreement as to the value of the land and property and where a valuation has been made by an official of the department, is there any appeal or can a valuation be obtained from another party?


Milton Fowler Gregg: As my hon. friend knows, in each region the Veterans Land Act administration has the benefit of excellent advisory committees. While there may not be a formal submission of an appraisal by our official, nevertheless our field superintendents consult with the advisory committee in forming appraisals.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Director may sell all or part of property sold to a veteran.
Milton Fowler Gregg: In dealing with the questions that have been asked under this section perhaps I may take the last first and then deal with the others. The hon. member for Melfort, the hon. member for Acadia and the hon. member for Royal have all referred to the idea behind these small holdings. I should like to make it abundantly clear that there is no withdrawal from the original idea. It is true that in the days of demobilization in 1945 and 1946, when it was more vital even than it is now to get demobilized men under cover, an amendment was made by order in council to the regulations of that day to permit the obtaining of blocks of land in the vicinity of large centres and breaking them into half-acre lots which became known as projects or subdivisions. A good deal of difficulty was experienced in getting equipment and skilled help to build the houses for these lots. After looking over the record I am free to state that the motive of having a small place in which to live in the country did not at that time carry a great deal of weight. In 1946, I believe, that was reversed and the regulations went back to two and three acres where it now stands.
The value of the original small holding idea has been pointed out this afternoon. I think we are beginning to come to a realization of it. Some hon. members may have seen reports of a competition which the director conducted within the last twelve months, for small holdings both in subdivisions and on individual settlements across the country. That, as well as many other things, including the remedial steps taken with regard to houses, helped to raise greatly the morale of many veterans settled under this provision of the act. During the present month, while things are reasonably quiet in the work of the administration of the Veterans Land Act, there is being carried

Veterans Land Act
on in Ottawa what I tell the director is a young college. Senior men and their assistants from every section of Canada are taking a three-weeks course. Those providing instruction in that course are drawn from many fields of activities having to do with agriculture, horticultural and small holdings. Now that we have had the plan back on the two and three acre plan for a goodly period, it is evident that there is great and continuing interest in this particular way of life that was visualized in 1942 when the smallholding idea came into effect.
For instance, let us take the first year, 1945-46. Approved applications for small holdings numbered 2,318. I admit the war ended that year, and consequently it took a little while for veterans to decide what they wanted to do, but in the first six months of the 1949-50 year there have been 1,808 approved applications for small holdings. If it continues on the same basis there will be 3,616 this year, or a good many more than the first year of demobilization. Of course the same thing can be stated as to those going on dominion and provincial lands. The rise there has been much more marked because it took some little time to get under way.
The other point which was made by most members who spoke was an expression of concern whether the provision under this section for the sale of a part of the property might result in its being reduced to a very small lot. The answer is no. The director will only have authority to allow the veteran to sell a portion of his property when the remaining portion is not less than the amount he would otherwise be required to have. It does not change the acreage position in any way whatsoever.


Clarence Gillis: Will the minister tell us what the special qualifications are whereby a veteran can qualify with two acres? The normal requirement is three, is it not?


Milton Fowler Gregg: It is based upon the current value of the land. If the land with a suitable supply of water is worth $500 an acre or more, it may be two acres, but if under $500, the minimum is three acres. The director has a twenty per cent discretion.


Clarence Gillis: There is another point that is quite important. You are changing section 9 (a) of the act and adding a section to it for the purpose of modifying the general terms. What I have in mind is that when a veteran establishes himself on a small holding-


Milton Fowler Gregg: Excuse me, but it is not taking out one and putting another in. It is adding another one.


Clarence Gillis: You are adding to it. When a. veteran establishes himself under the smallholding section he signs a contract with the director to the effect that he must remain on that particular section for ten years. Otherwise, if he is obliged to move before the ten-year period is up, he does not get the write-off of 25 per cent that he would if he remained on the land and completed all the terms of the contract. Perhaps that was all right in theory when we started, but in practice it is working a hardship on those who are obliged to move through no fault of their own. For example, I have in mind a case where a soldier working for an oil company established himself on that basis, and then was ordered to another part of the country after being there for three or four years. He is placed in the position that he has to refund the 25 per cent, and thus loses the benefit of that particular provision of the act. The amending section provides a modification whereby, in the event of his being obliged to move, he is permitted to make arrangements with the director to sell the land to another veteran who may qualify. According to my reading of it, the director is then enabled to help the man who is forced to move in the place where he is going. I wonder whether that will be of any help in connection with two or three cases I have in mind.
For example, an employee of an oil company is shifted outside Canada, and the regulations do not apply where he is going. Perhaps he has cleaned up his loan in four years, but nevertheless if he moves and hands back the property he is obliged to repay the 25 per cent plus interest. This may be a borderline case, but several of them have been brought to my attention. While the act helps to some extent in the circumstances where a veteran is moving from one part of Canada to another and is successful in getting another veteran to take over his place, it does not help the veteran who is shifted outside Canada. Is there any administrative latitude that might be granted in such a case? I cannot read it into this change.


Milton Fowler Gregg: As my hon. friend points out, everything else being equal, this enables a man who moves to another part of Canada to secure another property there. I hope the hon. member will not ask me to interpret the legal words used in the bill to achieve this.


Clarence Gillis: I wouldn't understand you.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I can assure him the law officers of the crown have "vetted" it carefully. They assure me it will do the trick. As to the man who must move outside Canada, it is granted that we cannot do the same thing because we cannot get land in the place

where he is going, but I think my hon. friend is wrong when he states that he has to repay to the director the conditional grant he would have got if he had remained on the property for ten years. He does not pay it back because he never had it. The conditional grant was promised him after ten years as an inducement, if you like, for him to adopt this kind of small-holding life, to try to get people out of the cities and interested in that type of property. If a situation arises where he cannot carry through he is no worse off than he was, but he has not qualified for the additional grant.


Clarence Gillis: I should like to get that clear in my own mind, because I may have to explain it to someone else. Say the value of the property was $15,000.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Keep it small; the limit is


Clarence Gillis: I just said $15,000 for a start. Say $5,000. Under the terms of the contract the veteran is obliged to pay $5,000 less 25 per cent, which is written off when the mortgage is finally burned. In the event of circumstances arising such as we have described so the veteran has to hand back the property, does he pay that $5,000 one hundred per cent, or does he hand back the property to the director less the 25 per cent? He is allowed that in the transaction if he remains on the property for ten years; but if he leaves that property before the ten years are up does he lose that 25 per cent?


Milton Fowler Gregg: He would lose the conditional grant because he would not earn it. If it is a $6,000 property the conditional grant normally would be $1,400; and if he carried through the contract, at the end of ten years the conditional grant would be his. But he cannot do that; consequently he loses it because he has not lived up to the terms required.


Clarence Gillis: He is really serving a ten-year sentence, and would there be any possibility of lessening that sentence? It would be quite all right if he was earning his living on the property as a regular farmer, but his means of livelihood are outside, so I do not think it is reasonable to say that the grant is conditional upon his remaining there for ten years. Could that not be knocked down to a shorter period?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I would not like to follow that through in all its details, but in actual practice such a man would be paying under his contract a very modest rental, if you called it a rental instead of a payment on his property. When he has to make that move, he has made certain payments which
Veterans Land Act
of course are credited to his account. More often than not when he makes the move all the worry in connection with the liquidation of the contract falls upon the director. In other words, if the veteran leaves the property within the ten-year period the terms of the conditional grant have not been met.


Percy Ellis Wright: I should like to carry that
just a step further. Supposing within the ten-year period this veteran moves from Vancouver, we will say, to Ottawa and gets another property under the Veterans Land Act. Does he qualify for the grant here? He has to buy the property under the Veterans Land Act, and it has to be a similar property in order to qualify.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes. The wording of the section in the bill covering that point may appear a little obscure; nevertheless that is fully provided for and is one of the reasons why these amendments were brought in.


Percy Ellis Wright: On the other hand if he cannot obtain a property here under the Veterans Land Act and has to buy a city house because he cannot wait to obtain something under the Veterans Land Act, does he get that grant?


Milton Fowler Gregg: If he is sold on the idea to the extent of wanting a second property under the act there is every likelihood that he would be able to get it. If that should be absolutely impossible, however, he would be in the same position as the man who went to the United States or somewhere else outside Canada.


Mr. Cardiff:: Take the case of a veteran who bought a farm and, before the ten-year period was up, found it did not suit him, paid all he owed on it, and then sold it. He does not owe the government or anybody else a cent. If he buys another farm is he entitled to re-establishment? The man to whom I have reference bought a farm and paid for it in a matter of two or three years. He paid the government everything he owed; then he sold the farm and now wants to buy another. Is he entitled to re-establishment in connection with the second farm?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Not in the ordinary course. The director has authority, for good and sufficient reasons, to assist a veteran to improve his condition, but the veteran would not be entitled to go on repeatedly buying and selling farms on his own. Under the terms of the act the director has authority to dispose of a veteran's property and assist him to obtain another property better suited to the needs of the man, but that would be done in a relatively few cases.
2S16

Veterans Land Act


Leslie Alexander Mutch: In the case mentioned the veteran could not get title in less than ten years; before that time he would not have earned his conditional grant. Therefore the property could only be sold by the director on his behalf, which is a proposal contained in this legislation. If this proposal carries, that could be done once, but only once. The director and the veteran cannot go on buying progressively better farms, and get into the real estate business. He could make a complete switch once within the ten-year period, but he could not pay it off in three years and get title without sacrificing his conditional grant because he would not earn his conditional grant in less than the ten-year period.


Milton Fowler Gregg: In reply to the hon. member for Cape Breton South and several others I should have added, taking the case mentioned by the hon. member, that when the man does clear up his contract with the director and moves to another part of Canada where he is not able to get settled, he then is in line to receive his re-establishment credit.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Then I would ask the minister what difference there is between those two propositions. The man to whom I have reference bought a farm, sold it and paid back everything that was coming to anybody. Now he wants to buy another farm. What is the difference between his position and that of the man you referred to just now, who moved to another part of the country?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: He bought the first farm on his own?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: No, he did not; he bought it under the Veterans Land Act, and paid back all the money that was required by anyone. Now he wants to re-establish himself on another farm.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I do not want to discuss hypothetical cases. If the man was happily re-established on the first farm and then decided to sell it, it is doubtful whether the country should be expected to re-establish him again, except under very special circumstances for which provision is made in the bill.


Victor Quelch: I wonder if the minister could give any breakdown showing what use the veterans are making of their small holdings of land. If he has not that information could he at least say what percentage of the veterans are obtaining any revenue from their small holdings? The purpose of my question is to find out how quickly we are realizing the purposes of the act.


Milton Fowler Gregg: That is a difficult thing to interpret in figures at this early stage, because as I see it these small holdings have a much

greater potential value than has been realized so far. It is intended to provide him with elbow room so that, perhaps during a period when he is not able to get as high a wage as he is now, he might develop some skill or do something on that property that would bring him in revenue. I can say further that, as a result of the judges' report on the competitions in the small holdings this year, I was surprised at the number of veterans who have made some use of their land.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: What percentage would you say?


Milton Fowler Gregg: It is difficult to be precise, but more than 50 per cent of the veterans across Canada have already made use of more than a reasonable amount of the land, either in productive capacity or in gardens, lawns and that sort of thing.


Percy Ellis Wright: I should like to support the member for Cape Breton South in his plea to the minister for veterans who have left these small holdings through causes that are not under their control, such as employment, sickness or something of that kind. I believe this ten-year sentence, as an hon. member put it, should be reduced to five years. It seems only reasonable that, when these people have to move because of circumstances over which they have no control, they should not lose the conditional grant that they got for the ten-year occupancy.
I was glad to hear the minister say that it was a bit difficult for him to understand the wording of parts of this act, because I found that, too. I should like to get an explanation of clause 4 of section 3. It reads as follows:
Where under this section the surplus or any portion thereof is applied in reduction of the cost to the director,
(a)	an amount that bears the same proportion to such surplus or portion as the contract sale price bears to the cost to the director of the land, improvements and building materials, or
(b)	seventy-six and two-thirds per centum of such surplus or portion whichever is the lesser, shall be applied in reduction of the amount owing under the contract, and for the purposes of subsection four of section nine the total outstanding cost to the director shall be reduced by the amount of such surplus or portion.
Can the minister or his assistant put that into language which the ordinary member understands?


Milton Fowler Gregg: 
Percy Ellis Wright: I am grateful to the minister for giving us time until his estimates come up to study the matter, because I cannot understand it now.


Mr. Noseworthy:: I should like to call attention to one matter which has been mentioned a number of times during the debate on this bill. One of the most frequent complaints from veterans I meet in the city of Toronto concerns the size of small holdings. The one amendment I think is needed most is an amendment that will restore the small holding to its original size, particularly adjoining a metropolitan area. The price of two acres anywhere near the city of Toronto is too high. If the veteran can purchase the land at a price he can afford, he has to go so far out of the city that getting back and forth to work becomes impossible.
If the minister and his department could give some consideration to reducing the size of that holding, especially near metropolitan areas, it would make it possible for veterans who are working in the city to acquire a small home just outside the city, along with half an acre of land. They could grow some vegetables to help out the family budget. I believe I have had more requests regarding the possibility of getting a half acre than for anything else under the act. This provision affects the veterans living near the large cities.


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: I wish to mention the same point as the member who has just spoken. In the county of Middlesex, I find there are some half-acre plots available. In some of the villages near my constituency, I find that the requirement is for a larger acreage. This means that one veteran can go out of the city of London, purchase a half acre and secure the benefits of the act, while a veteran living in another village is unable
Veterans Land Act
to do that. This does not seem fair. Under present circumstances, I believe a half acre is large enough. If the veteran feels he wants to expand later, he can buy more acreage as he needs it.
While I am speaking about these small holdings, I should like to say that many of the veterans deserve a great deal of credit for the way they have improved their property in the county of Middlesex.


Mr. White (Hasiings-Pelerborough):: I
should like to ask the minister about the point mentioned by the member for Royal, that is the long delay in getting legal transactions through the department. In the past it has been the custom to blame these delays on the lawyers. As the minister knows, if there is no question about the title, there is no reason for the lawyer to hold the matter up. I would be glad if the minister would take the province of Ontario, since it is the only one with which I am familiar, and tell us how many departments there are in Ontario and just how an application goes through. Will he explain what causes the long delay?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I hope, and it is not just a pious hope, that the long delays are not as great as they were before. Will the hon. member accept my promise to bring forward a complete reply to his question when my estimates are before the house?


George Stanley White: Can
the minister say what would be the average time taken for an application to go through after its acceptance?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I should not like to make an estimate, but I will get one for my hon. friend.
I should like to comment on the two suggestions made a moment ago. Those proposals of course would reverse the original intention of the act, but that is not the main point. I would look at the matter with a good deal of concern if the Minister of Veterans Affairs were forced to go into the housing business. Might I suggest to both hon. members that they look quite carefully into the terms of the legislation now brought forward by my colleague, the minister of reconstruction, with regard to housing and which I think will help to take care of the problems in the metropolitan areas which they mentioned.


Joseph William Noseworthy: It is not so much a matter of housing; a half acre of land adjoining a city is entirely different from a house in the city. A great many veterans would like to get just outside the city, yet near enough to get back and forth to work without having to travel fifteen or twenty miles, as in Toronto. It is not just a case of getting a house; it is a case of getting a home and a bit of land -on

Veterans Land Act
which they can do some gardening and augment their income. It is more than a question of a house.


Mr. Warren:: It is not often that I trouble the minister. I think that is a suggestion which ought to be considered. I have had some problems of that nature in my riding. It is not always easy to get three acres of land close to your work. You might be able to get half an acre. If it is good land, you can grow a great quantity of vegetables on half an acre of land, provided that you are willing to work. If it were possible to give that help to a veteran who would build a house of his own in his spare time-as could easily happen if he had the necessary energy and ambition -on half an acre of land, I would be in favour of giving it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
On section 5-Termination of contract by agreement.
George Stanley White: If the
sale is made, will the minister say just how the proceeds will be divided?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Hon. members will observe opposite section 5 the explanatory notes which are quite brief. In the act machinery is provided for the termination of contracts of veterans who are in default, and all such situations must be examined by the provincial advisory board before termination proceedings are completed. It sometimes happens that a veteran is ready to dispense with the formal procedure and is prepared to give a quit claim deed to the director with respect to his interest in the contract. That is where he volunteers and is quite willing to do so without any pressure whatsoever. The purpose of this amendment is to relieve the director, under such circumstances, of the need to go through the long formal procedure that I have mentioned.


George Stanley White: In a
case like that, if the veteran is agreeable to having the contract rescinded and if the director in due time disposes of the small holdings and there is no loss, does that mean that the veteran who is no longer under V.L.A., and did not receive any rehabilitation grant, would then be entitled to his rehabilitation grant?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes, he would be entitled to his rehabilitation grant.


George Stanley White: Is
there anything in this amendment or in the act that distinctly states that he is entitled to his rehabilitation grant?


Milton Fowler Gregg: It is in vogue now.


George Stanley White: In this
act?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No. It does not require to be incorporated in this act.


George Stanley White: I am
glad to hear the minister say that, but I do not know of any place where it is stated that he is entitled to that.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Perhaps I could answer that question. You will remember, Mr. Chairman, that there were three possible ways of receiving rehabilitation benefits and each of those was exclusive of the others. The only way that a veteran gets benefit under the small holdings section of the Veterans Land Act is to earn his conditional grant. If he did not earn his conditional grant by staying on the land long enough to earn it and fulfil his contract, he does not receive any rehabilitation benefit at all under this act. He might then elect to get his credits. If the time had not elapsed, the fifteen months, he would alternatively be entitled to an educational grant.


George Stanley White: If you
follow that up, Mr. Chairman, where the land goes back to the veteran and there is a loss of $300 on the resale, would that in any way affect the amount of rehabilitation grant? Would that $300 be deducted from his rehabilitation grant or would he get his full rehabilitation grant as if he had never made application under V.L.A.?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I should not like to answer that question without checking, but I believe that it would depend on whether or not it was held that he had by his negligence contributed to the loss. It would then be apportioned.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
On section 7-Surplus on resale to be paid to veteran.
Percy Ellis Wright: I should like to ask the minister whether subsection 3 might not be amended. It reads:
(3) Where the contract between the director and a veteran was rescinded or otherwise terminated and it is established to the satisfaction of the director that
(a)	the property described therein did not deteriorate in value owing to wilful neglect by the veteran during his occupancy, and
(b)	failure of the veteran to observe the terms of his contract was due to his physical disability, or ill-health of his family, or his general unfitness to farm, or the unsuitability of the property, and that as a consequence thereof the veteran is in necessitous circumstances.

the director may, with the approval of the governor in council, refund to the veteran his initial down payment in whole or in part.
I think the words "and that as a consequence thereof the veteran is in necessitous circumstances" should be taken out. It seems to me that we are bringing the means test into this legislation in a way that is done in no other section of the act. Where the other conditions obtain, where the land has not deteriorated in value, and where the failure of the veteran to observe the terms of his contract was due to physical disability, or ill health in his family, or general unfitness to farm, or the unsuitability of the property, he should be entitled to the 10 per cent refund without having to prove necessitous circumstances. I would ask the minister seriously to consider eliminating these words, "and that as a consequence thereof the veteran is in necessitous circumstances".


Victor Quelch: I would agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Melfort. That is the point to which I was referring when I spoke on second reading. It seems to me that a veteran should certainly be entitled to the refund of the down payment unless it can be shown that the property has deteriorated as the result of his wilful neglect.
Then again, I think that paragraph (b) of subsection (3) should be widened a little bit. It contains these words, "or the unsuitability of the property". What about the case of the veteran who has suffered, we will say, two or three total crop failures as the result of hail? If he is going to lose his farm, at least he should have the down payment refunded because he will be in a bad financial position if he has to give up farming as a result of continued bad luck. I am referring only to conditions over which he has no control. If it is as the result of a series of crop failures, not of poor farming, or to hail or other misfortune that he has to give up farming, then I think he should be entitled to a refund of the down payment because he is certainly in need of it.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I think both my hon. friends will agree that probably we make progress slowly. I believe the words underlined, "or the unsuitability of the property" represent a step forward-a very long step forward. I think it might even be stated that the case suggested by the hon. member for Acadia involved unsuitability in the location of the property, and that that caused the circumstances he mentioned. I am sure he will agree that those who administer the act will interpret that faithfully and well. I should like to have that provision stand as it is at the present time anyway.
Veterans Land Act


Victor Quelch: Why retain the words "in
necessitous circumstances", so long as it is not due to wilful neglect? Why should he not get the refund?


Milton Fowler Gregg: There is no answer; but it was in before and I do not wish to change it at this time.


Percy Ellis Wright: It is six o'clock, and I think the minister should think it over during the recess.


Milton Fowler Gregg: It has been thought over and discussed at great length.


The Deputy Chairman:: Perhaps this section might be allowed to carry; there are only a few more.


Victor Quelch: We are on section 7. I should like to ask a question about subsection 2 (c), which refers to taxes and costs of insurance and repairs paid or incurred with respect to such property by the director since the date of rescission or other termination. Just how far can the director go in connection with making repairs to a property? As the minister knows, many farms that are bought by veterans have a number of buildings in a bad state of repair. Does that mean that the director can repair all the buildings into shipshape condition, when they were not in a good state of repair when the veteran bought the land? If the land sells at an increased price owing to the fact that the veteran has put a lot of improvements on it, surely he should be in a position to benefit from those improvements.
On the other hand, if the director has a free hand to carry out all kinds of repairs on the buildings, he might use up any profit left on the transaction. Repairs should extend only to the extent of putting the buildings back into the condition they were in at the time the land was bought.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Is the hon. member referring to the situation where receipts from the sale of a piece of property may be used to repair buildings?


Victor Quelch: No. Section 19 (1) states:
Where a contract made by the director with a veteran is rescinded or otherwise terminated and any property that was sold by the contract is re-sold by the director for more than the amount owing under the contract, the surplus shall be paid by the director to the veteran.
(2) For the purposes of subsection one the amount owing under the contract is the aggregate ofand so on.


Milton Fowler Gregg: That is just to restore the property to the condition it was in before


Victor Quelch: That is all?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes, that is all.

Alberta Natural Gas Company


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 8 to 11 inclusive agreed to.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the title carry?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the minister have an office consolidation made of this act? It would be most convenient to hon. members, in view of the amendments.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes. May I thank hon. members for their co-operation in getting this bill through.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, November 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. May-bank for the second reading of Bill No. 66, respecting Alberta Natural Gas Company.
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, when the house was considering this bill a week ago I had not quite concluded my remarks. I suggest to you and to hon. members of the house that the test which should be applied to these private bills granting charters to build a pipe line should be this: Is the proposed company going to give the greatest possible service to the Canadian people?
The company under discussion in this bill, to be known as the Alberta Natural Gas Company, does not meet that test. The proposal is to run a pipe line from southern Alberta, through the Crowsnest pass and thence into the United States. We are told that they hope to bring it out again at the end to serve Vancouver, which would then be at the end of the line. It should be made perfectly clear that that plan means that this company will serve, first, the interiors of Idaho, Washington and possibly Oregon; second, the United States west coast cities of Seattle, Tacoma and Portland; and, third and last, the Canadian west coast will be able to get whatever surplus is left.
I have here this week's issue of V.S. News and World Report. The heading of the article to which I am referring is, "Canada: Oil's new hot spot." A map appears with the article illustrating the oil boom now at flood
tMr. Gregg.]
tide in Alberta and spilling over into Saskatchewan and possibly reaching Manitoba. It shows a pipe line under construction to the southeast from Edmonton to Superior, Wisconsin, and it shows a proposed pipe line to the southwest, again from Edmonton, running into the state of Idaho, thence into Washington and thence to Seattle, Tacoma and Portland. That is the way the United States are looking at this business.


Walter Edward Harris: I think in fairness the hon. member should read the contents of the article, which states that it will supply British Columbia markets.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the hon. member should refer to newspaper or magazine articles having reference to the present debate.


Howard Charles Green: It is only natural that this pipe line should serve the northwest states because the company behind this bill is a United States company, the Northwest Natural Gas Company, whicn is an affiliate of Venezuela Syndicate Incorporated of New York. The first interest of this company is the Pacific northwest states, not the province of British Columbia.
Since I made my speech last week the Vancouver Sun of November 24, 1945, has arrived which contains an article datelined at Calgary and reading as follows:
Northwest Natural Gas Company has asked the Alberta natural gas and conservation board for an adjournment of its hearing for permission to export gas to points outside the province.
I point out that that is an application made to the Alberta authorities by the Northwest Natural Gas Company. The article continues:
This company, which has plans to bring Alberta's gas to the coast by a southerly route through the United States, has run into difficulty in the House of Commons, in its move to get federal approval for incorporation.
Previous to this sitting of the house it had requested Alberta to hear its application on November 28. Now the application might not come up until after the end of the year.
They are waiting to get this bill through the house.
British Columbia's government and many residents have gone on record supporting Westcoast. A line through northern British Columbia and Alberta would build up the sparsely settled districts in both provinces, they say.
There is no doubt at all who is behind this application for a charter. It is a United States company which is planning to serve the northwestern states. I suggest that the line should be through British Columbia to the coast, and I do not care which route it follows provided that it goes through Canadian territory. If there is any surplus it can then be sent on to United States west coast cities. Nobody could have any objection to that.

If that plan were followed, instead of this pipe line serving the interior of the northwest Pacific states, the American Pacific coast cities and finally the west coast of Canada, we would have the interior of British Columbia served first, then Canadian west coast centres and finally United States west coast cities, if any surplus was available. I need only point out to hon. members that when we were discussing the trans-Canada highway this week everyone insisted that it should go through Canada; no one suggested anything else. Surely we should do the same thing with this natural gas pipe line.
I suggest that some delay is advisable before a decision is reached on this point. A question like this should not be settled in the dying days of this short session; time should be available to determine how Canadians can best be served by this pipe line. Then thought should also be given to having placed in the charters the route to be followed. I repeat the argument I made before, that there should be written right into the charter where the company has to lay out its route. Further, an attempt should be made to negotiate with the United States. If this ripe line or other pipe lines have to cross the boundary and then come back into Canada, we have no assurance they will come back unless there is a treaty with the United States. It is ridiculous to leave it to a private company to make the arrangements. Once the pipe line crosses our boundary we lose all control, and the only way we can get any control at all is by having a treaty.
I also believe consideration should be given to writing more controls into the dominion legislation. There should be some method of controlling the rates to be charged by the pipe line companies. At the present time there is practically no control over a natural gas pipe line under the dominion Pipe Lines Act. Time should be taken for public opinion to crystallize on the broad question. It involves more than natural gas and oil. We shall be faced with the same decision in connection with our iron ore in Quebec and Labrador. There is a great issue to be settled by the Canadian people. My party and I believe in conserving Canadian resources for the use of the Canadian people.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Howard Charles Green: No, not at the moment. I will answer it if I have time. We believe in conserving Canadian resources for the use of the Canadian people rather than the policy of the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) which is that of being liberal with these great resources so far as the United States is concerned.
Alberta Natural Gas Company
Just think how the people of the United States will laugh at us when they learn there is a difference of opinion in Canada as to whether Canadians are to be looked after first. The Americans have built a great nation. They have built the most powerful nation in the world, and they have done so primarily by looking after their own interests first. They have never hesitated to see that their own interests were protected, and Canada should do exactly the same thing. The only way Canada will ever become a great nation is by seeing that we look after Canada first. I suggest that by allowing these pipe lines to be built through the United States rather than wholly through Canadian territory we are not looking after the Canadian people. We are giving the people of the United States a chance to build industries, to provide employment, and also unfortunately to attract our young Canadians to the United States for the purpose of taking that employment. That is what will happen if a development of this type is allowed to go through. Therefore I move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black):
That the word "now" be deleted and the words "this day six months hence" be added at the end of the question.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, I was paired, but had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. G. T. Fulford (Leeds):: I move, seconded by Mr. Lafontaine, that this question be now put.


Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: did not intend to take part in this debate. As a matter of fact, in spite of the discussion, this is the first time I have spoken on the motion, and my record can be checked to prove that. I am getting a little advice from the cabinet ranks, which I appreciate. I appreciate advice from anyone. If my friend wants to give me advice, I shall sit down for a moment.
I have been accused of taking part in a filibuster. I should like to make my point quite clear. Generally, I speak too quickly, and I appreciate that fact. I have no connection in any way, shape or form with the Westcoast Transmission Company, whose bill was passed last year. I have never attended their meetings, have no shares in the company, and only know one of the directors by sight. In common with the member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith), I resent some of
[Mr. Green.)
the remarks that have been passed. All right, the more interruptions I get, the quicker it will be nine o'clock.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The rubber stamps can't take it.


Mr. Whitman:: It sounds like a stampeder.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and we were proud to be stampeders; we can take defeat as well as victory. The other night I listened to the only member who, in my opinion, knows anything at all about oil. In so far as I know, we have one mining engineer in this house, but no geologist. We have the member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) who, for forty years, has lived in the oil country. He has invested his money in it, and has acted on behalf of oil companies. He knew what he was talking about, but not one member of the government nor any other private member does know what he is talking about.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: How much do you know?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I thought I heard some bright remarks from that small district in the maritimes. The only thing they are noted for in the maritimes is that they catch some lobsters, and some they send to parliament. Someone near me mentioned crabs. In my province, we are very fond of crabs which are found in the Pacific ocean. Perhaps you would like to know how we catch these crabs. I shall tell you. We go around with a net or with a spear-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member was not strictly in order, but I think perhaps he was provoked to speak on a subject that is not in order. If hon. members will not interrupt him, I believe he will address himself to the question.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the words from Holy Writ would apply, "Forgive them, they know not what they do". It has been suggested, Mr. Speaker, that we were staging a filibuster. I do not think I can be accused of staging a filibuster, because this is the first time I have spoken on this motion. I spoke for five minutes on the amendment. If I had any connection with the filibuster, I would have no shame in saying so. I have very good reason for not being ashamed of staging a filibuster. I well remember when the sponsor of this bill before us tonight spoke for 41 minutes to talk out a resolution. His voice became extremely husky just about nine o'clock.	.
I remember, too, when the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) moved an amendment for old age pensions, another

parliamentary assistant spoke for 27 minutes about the poor old people-how they suffered, these poor old pensioners, and what we want to do for them; how they need help, and so on-until nine o'clock. Do not talk to me about filibusters. I was accused by a member from British Columbia, which I did not particularly like-oh, I like him personally a great deal. I should like to quote from page 2254 of Hansard:
One hon. member from the Liberal benches rose to point out he was wholeheartedly in agreement with the opposition on this question. I am very happy there are not more Liberals taking that position because I would say that it is an obviously biased and reactionary position, and if there were more I would be extremely apprehensive of the future of the Liberal party.


An hon. Member:: Who was that?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I quoted the page of Hansard. It was the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne). Now I want to quote the hon. member for Kootenay East on another matter which is equally important. I am referring to this because a direct reference was made to me. Unfortunately I am the only Liberal member, or at least the only member on this side of the house who is in favour of an all-Canada route, apparently, but I want to quote the hon. member for Kootenay East on another matter. This is on the deduction of union dues for income tax purposes. I wonder what his fellow members of his union think-


Mr. Sinclair:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member is in order in quoting a comment made in a debate of this session that has been closed, and made by an hon. member who is not here tonight.


An hon. Member:: Why?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I cannot read it, if you so rule, Mr. Speaker; but I do not take my rulings from any parliamentary assistant.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member is referring to another debate in this session on another subject, he should not do so.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Arthur Leroy Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the rule is that the hon. member cannot quote the material, is it not? But surely he may refer to it.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the rule is that he cannot do indirectly what he is not allowed to do directly.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That is a good old rule of law but in this house it is more honoured in the breach than in the observance.
Alberta Natural Gas Company


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am willing to bow to any ruling, Mr. Speaker, even if I have to have the obvious objections to an all-Canada route from some of my fellow British Columbia members. When a charge is made against me, am I to understand that I cannot refer to the action of a so-called representative of union labour? If he is not here tonight, why is he not here? He is paid $6,000 a year, the same as I am.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Mitchell:: I rise, Mr. Speaker-


John Ewen Sinclair: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Humphrey Mitchell: I rise to a point of order.


Angus MacInnis: One of the hon. members had better sit down.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not think that is fair and reasonable. Many hon. members are absent. Perhaps they are at committee meetings. I do not know. The leader of the C.C.F. is not here, and I do not say that disrespectfully. The leader of the Conservative party is not here, nor is the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent).


Angus MacInnis: Neither is the leader of the government.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is what I say. I do not think it is fair and decent for the hon. member to speak as he has. If my hon. friend wants to talk about pipe lines, let him do so and let him be decent and fair as every hon. member in this house should be.


John Ewen Sinclair: I want to speak to this point of privilege. The hon. member for Kootenay East is attending the British Columbia convention of the International Mine and Smelter Workers' Union; for the past three years he has been president of the Kimberley local. I think he is doing his duty as a union man in attending that union meeting and the miners of British Columbia would want to have their miner member of parliament attend.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am getting a good deal of assistance from those in the government and those who would like to be in the government. Now that the explanation is given to me, may I say that I think the hon. member for Kootenay East is where he should be and I withdraw the remarks I made with regard to his not being here tonight, which were forced on me by a junior member from my province. I withdraw the remarks. The hon. member is where he should be. I hope he will explain to his fellow union members why he was in favour of the exemption of union dues one minute and yet ten minutes

Alberta Natural Gas Company afterwards voted against it. At least I think I can claim that I have been consistent in my stand in connection with the pipe lines.
It is an easy matter to talk the bill out. If we wanted to talk this bill out, we could talk on it for a week. Like the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith), however, I have no intention of doing so.


An hon. Member:: Sit down and let us vote on it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Some members from
British Columbia have their own privilege, their own right and their own duty to their respective ridings, Mr. Speaker. Incidentally, if I in conjunction with some other members have done nothing else, I have contributed greatly to the financial success of the Chateau Laurier and the Lord Elgin hotel. I have also contributed a good deal in my small way to the legal profession. The lawyers have been down here for three weeks going back and forward between the two hotels and the parliament buildings with regard to these two pipe line bills, lobbying against building a line through Canada; but they have not visited room 565 as yet.
As I cannot quote from these copies of Hansard, Mr. Speaker, I will put them away. As I say, I think that any member of this house will give me credit for consistency, in that respect being unlike some other so-called union members. I am going to quote just one editorial from a paper in my riding. I want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, if I may-and repeat a remark that has been made before-that there are not eighteen people in British Columbia who are in favour of the United States route. The obvious answer is that out of eighteen members from that province, they could not get a solitary member to sponsor the bill. I defy any member from the province of British Columbia to rise in his place tonight and tell me of any organization in his riding that is in favour of the United States route. Of course they cannot do it. They are afraid to do it.
I will just name one organization. Wait a minute. I have some documents here; I have a great many of them but I do not want to take up the time of the house in referring to them, Mr. Speaker, because I do not want to delay the proceedings. I have one document from a northern riding; it is from the board of trade of Prince George or Fort George; there are so many Georges in that horthern country that need to be developed, and there is apparently no desire on the part of some to develop them. But this is from the board of trade demanding an all-Canadian route, or rather it is from the associated

boards of trade. I could take the time to read it to you, Mr. Speaker, but I do not want to delay the house. The associated boards of trade of the Fraser valley and the lower mainland demanded a route that would serve the best interests of all Canada.
I am just going to read this. I do not like to boast. It is seldom that I mention Fraser Valley in this house, but we have a fine riding there that needs to be developed. We have some five fine newspapers. To the best of my knowledge there are two weekly-newspaper editors who are members of this House of Commons. There may be more, but I know there are two. One of the newspapers in my riding, in two out of three years, won the Mason trophy as the best weekly newspaper in the Dominion of Canada. I am proud of that fact. I am just going to read you a little editorial in answer to one of the members, who talks one way and votes another way five minutes afterwards, with regard to union dues. I am going to answer him by just reading from the newspaper, the Fraser Valley Record of November 16, 1949. It mentions me, of course, and in all modesty I do not like to mention myself if I am sure that somebody else is going to do it before I do. I want you to note this, Mr. Speaker, as I want some of these other British Columbia members to note it. The heading is "Develop Canadian Payrolls First". I will read this because it should be of vital importance to some of the members from the province of British Columbia. It states in the headline "Develop Canadian Payrolls First". Now, let me go back, before I go on to read it. Last year I was interviewed-I was lobbied-"Don't sell our logs to the United States to be cut into lumber and put into pulp. Let us cut them in Canada. Let us produce lumber in Canada. Let us produce large payrolls and develop Canada."
Then the poor fishermen, the members of these unions, had an opportunity to sell their fish in Seattle at a higher price than the Canadian canners would pay for them. These same interests came to me saying that we must not sell our fish there, that we must not sell our fish in Seattle-"Let us can them in Canada. Keep Canadians at work and develop Canadian industry". These are the same individuals who are today opposing the development of Canada by an all-Canadian pipe line route. That is only incidental, but it is very typical.
It reminds me of the old saying that it depends on whose ox is being gored. I shall now read this article from the Fraser Valley

Record dated November 16, 1949-and I think I am justified in repeating the heading: "Develop Canadian Payrolls First". It states:
An interesting mixture of B.C. members, including of course if it was interesting, Fraser Valley's own George Cruickshank-
And I am very glad that is in there-
-co-operated in the house on Friday night to "talk out" a natural gas pipe line bill. B.C., and all Canada for that matter, should be very pleased that they did. The company had already admitted in Senate committee that it favoured routing its pipe line via United States to the Pacific coast, ostensibly to reduce construction costs.
The Pacific coast cities south of the border, under this proposal, would get Canadian gas first and, if Vancouver, New Westminster and the Fraser Valley ever got any gas at all it would presumably only be through a branch line.
For too long the west at least has been allowing its resources to be shuttled over the border in an unfinished state. In this condition we provide only the minimum of employment to mine or cut or catch the particular resource. The big industrial payrolls that result from manufacturing or processing these products go to enhance the wealth and prestige of our neighbours and competitors.
Let us not make the same mistake with this new resource. If industries are to be developed with the aid of this product let them first be developed in cur country. If we have some gas to spare, let the branch lines be run across the border.
To the four B.C. members who joined in Friday night's filibuster, representing Liberal, C.C.F. and Conservative faiths, we say "good work."
Let me see an editorial like that from one of the other ridings.


Mr. Speaker:: If I may interrupt the hon. member, I would refer him to paragraph 265 in Beauchesne, third edition, which reads as follows:
It is not in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or communications emanating from persons outside the house and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the house.
I do not think the hon. member should continue to read the article.


Arthur Leroy Smith: On the point of order, the Prime Minister of this country today in the house read articles from the Toronto Daily Star and the Toronto Telegram without any difficulty whatsoever. The hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) is doing nothing different from what was done this morning by the Prime Minister.


Thomas Langton Church: Nine o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know the incident to which the hon. member for Calgary West refers. However, I am reading from Beauchesne, third edition, which is recognized as an authoritative work on parliamentary procedure. If the hon. member for Calgary West had brought to my attention the reading of newspapers by any hon. member, reflecting 45781-167
Supply-National Health and Welfare upon the proceedings in the house, I would have brought it to the attention of the hon. member who was reading.


Arthur Leroy Smith: With great
respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not think you were here at the time. I am perfectly certain if you had been you would have enforced the rule against the Prime Minister just as you would against any other member in the house. That is what I, and this party, think of you as Speaker of the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: If an article was read this morning, then perhaps I should allow some latitude to the hon. member for Fraser Valley this evening. Under the circumstances I shall allow him to continue.


George Alexander Cruickshank: If I have offended, I am sorry. I should like to read from the Chilliwack Progress about the "great Cruickshank", but for fear of transgressing the rules I will not read it. But I can assure you, sir, and through you all members of the House of Commons, that ninety-eight per cent of the population of British Columbia approve of my consistency in this attitude.


Mr. Casselman:: Nine o'clock.


George Alexander Cruickshank: And I have never heard any member with the audacity to get up on the floor of the house and say that he has any support from any other section.
On motion of Mr. Cruickshank the debate was adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: It being nine o'clock the house will resume the business which was interrupted at six o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Dion in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE

[Stage Direction]
252. Departmental administration, $794,605.
William Gourlay Blair: Mr. Chairman, some two weeks ago in the house when we were discussing a resolution presented by the hon. member for Eglinton, in which he asked for a committee on health, a debate on health matters ensued. At that time we had an opportunity to discuss matters of health in Canada. Unfortunately the Minister of National Health and Welfare was not in his seat at the time, because he was absent on other important business.
The opportunity to speak on health matters is usually limited to three or four hours toward the close of the session; yet it is one of the most important matters debated in the House of Commons. During the debate on the resolution offered by the hon. member for Eglinton I placed before the house certain
2626	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Health and Welfare important statistics showing the state of national health in Canada, and suggested certain remedies for that condition.
There is no occasion to repeat the statistics I gave at that time, but the brief summary I placed on record concerning our national health served to show that the picture at the present time is not reassuring. I pointed out the change that had taken place in the last two or three decades in respect of the principal causes of death. I attempted to show that the diseases which formerly headed the list as causes of mortality had changed, and that such diseases as old age, heart disease and cancer were now at the top of the list, and were the leading causes of death in this country.
The diseases I have mentioned should have the attention of all workers in the field of public health. While they may not contribute to a rise in the mortality rate they offer a challenge to the research workers of this country.
In a previous debate I mentioned the prevalence of mental diseases and drew attention to the shortage of hospital beds for these cases. We could also debate other matters such as sewage disposal, contamination of water and so on. These are important matters that should be brought before this house. I drew attention to the need for more housing space, the necessity for the rehabilitation of disabled persons, the high accident rate in this country; these are things that should be discussed when national health matters are being considered.
There are no statistics available with regard to the rehabilitation of disabled persons, but we can take into consideration tubercular cases released from sanitaria, cardiac or heart cases, the blind and the enormous number of those mentally afflicted, and those who have been physically handicapped by accident or disease. Many of these people are invalids who require care and support, and in spite of the progress we have made in finding new ways to rehabilitate those who are handicapped, they still pose a problem. We still have many obstacles to overcome and there is still much to do.
We do not feel that the situation is entirely hopeless because new weapons are now available in the fight against disease and suffering and we have every reason to believe that national health can be raised to a level higher than that which exists at the present time. If each province and the dominion take the proper steps to put into force and use the new knowledge acquired from research in the last twenty years, the condition in so far as this country is concerned will be corrected. But it will require sound planning, it will require


adequate financial support, it will require courageous leadership, and it will require above all the active application of the products of research. There is no doubt that there has been marked improvement in the health of this country. As each province has control of its own health matters we should congratulate the leaders of those provinces upon the splendid improvement that has been brought about in recent years.
As I have pointed out several times, there are two matters which should be kept constantly before us in the consideration of health matters. The first is the necessity of opportunity for treatment and the second is the urgent necessity of applying the results of research, whether in the matter of treatment, hospitalization or prevention. The opportunity to procure treatment in the early stages of a disease is most important. Hospitalization is often beyond the means of a large part of our population.
The cost of hospital accommodation has increased greatly in the last three or four years, although there were signs of increased cost during the war. There has been an increased tendency for people to seek hospital treatment. This is a most expensive item in the budget of every family. There is a reason for this in the fact that it is difficult to obtain help or nursing services in the home. Any one of us can picture the financial blow it is to one of moderate means when faced with a large bill for hospital treatment and accommodation.
This sort of treatment is more expensive for certain types of disease and the facilities for hospital treatment that we have are inadequate to cope with the emergency which exists at the present time. Hospital accommodation is particularly inadequate in the case of mental diseases, tuberculosis and incurables. At the present time many incurables are occupying beds in public wards of hospitals. It is true that they are receiving care and treatment, but our hospitals are short of accommodation and these people are occupying beds which are urgently needed for acute cases.
While the results of research in the last decade have accomplished wonderful things it should be pointed out that some of the newer types of treatment are very expensive, but even though that may be, it is highly necessary that all our people have the advantage of the new products of research. The new product cortisone for the treatment of arthritis, a disease which has been referred to in this house many times and we are watching with interest the clinical results of the administration of this drug. We hope that this will prove the answer to arthritis

which has baffled our research workers and which leaves behind a trail of suffering and chronic invalidism.
There are four objectives we should keep in mind. First, the control of infections; second, health education; third, sanitation; and, fourth, preventive services. In the past those four objectives have produced marvellous results and in order to obtain the best results we should see that those objectives have been attained in every section of our country. In the last four years remarkable progress has been made in health education and it is important in carrying out any scheme for the betterment of health conditions in Canada that our population should be educated, not only in the prevention of disease but on how to take full advantage of early diagnostic measures which may be available to them.
Take cancer as an example. Early signs and symptoms of this disease may often give warning to a patient who has read about it or who has attended lectures and knows something of the symptoms. If he feels that something is wrong he should have an opportunity to attend some clinic or see his own physician and have a proper diagnosis made. Warnings may be noted by a patient at an early date but if they are neglected it means a great deal in the further treatment of the disease.
Voluntary agencies are doing a splendid work in health education. At the present time the Kinsmen are putting on a mass X-ray program in Ottawa and free X-rays are available to the citizens for the diagnosis of tuberculosis. Even though only a few cases of tuberculosis are found, a great work will have been done. These people will be able to seek early treatment, and if they are infectious they will be removed from the population thus hindering further infection by this terrible disease. There may be some variation in the statistics for various parts of the city as to those who are infected, but in so far as the final result is concerned the importance of getting the patient under early treatment in the first stages of the disease cannot be overestimated. I congratulate the Kinsmen or any other service club working in this field.
Poliomyelitis or infantile paralysis is still a problem for research work. We sincerely hope that research in poliomyelitis will advance to the point where we can get control of this terrible, crippling disease. In providing free hospitalization for sufferers from poliomyelitis, my own province of Ontario has been a pioneer in this work. Many of those who might otherwise have been crippled are able to make a complete 45781-167i
Supply-National Health and Welfare recovery owing to hospitalization with physiotherapy and other measures which are used by way of treatment to prevent crippling. It saves a great many of these young people from being permanently crippled.
Over the years it is certainly true that wars have stimulated research, and the means by which lives can be saved have been developed in that time of stress. We have found out a great deal about the treatment of disease, surgery and preventive measures. Even if we had the assurance that there would be no more war, we should intensify our efforts to destroy disease and suffering. I should like to think that some time in the future a healthy world may mean a peaceful world. It is essential that health in our dominion be deemed as important in peace as in wartime.
I cannot discuss these matters without bringing to the attention of hon. members again the increasing number of admissions to mental hospitals. I talked about this matter at the time the other resolution was before the house. I cited statistics and proved to the house that our mental population was increasing faster than our general population. It is most unfortunate that in all the provinces of Canada there is a marked shortage of beds for mental cases. It is a curious fact that mental diseases which cause so much suffering and confusion have received so little attention from preventive medicine until the last few years. Psychiatry is now taking its proper place, and there has been much added to our knowledge and treatment of these diseases. We are now able to provide intensive treatment with excellent results. It is not my purpose to discuss this at this time because it has previously been debated in the house, but there was a time in the treatment of mental disease when all the treatment amounted to was custodial care.
There will always be huge problems to be solved in the field of national health, and as present problems are solved others will arise to take their place. We must be ready to meet any change in situation and to keep pace with the times. We must face the matter realistically day by day, and we must have courage and determination to build for the future in the interests of the people of Canada.
I now come to the question of the administration of the health grants. These were introduced on the 14th of May, 1948, by the former prime minister of this country. I again take issue with the Minister of National Health and Welfare, as I did last year, regarding the manner in which publicity is:
2628	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-National Health and Welfare given to the press and over the radio in connection with these grants, and particularly those to hospitals. Hospitals are now in a serious financial plight, and added to the troubles which they already bear is the serious and alarming shortage of beds. I again point out to the minister that health is primarily a matter within the jurisdiction of the provinces. Over the years it must be admitted that the provinces have done marvellous work in the field of public health, which was mainly accomplished by their own initiative and with their own resources. In the accomplishment of their great work they have done little or no advertising. The work was performed quietly. They felt that the work in the provincial field performed by the departments of health of the various provinces was the job they should be doing.
There are many other agencies which are also responsible for the achievements which have been made up to this time. Certainly not all of the progress made to date has been due to the Department of National Health and Welfare. I again point out to the minister that advertising, no matter in what form it is displayed, has not been part of the traditions of the medical profession, or of any other agency interested in healing. Nurses, physicians and surgeons, hospital executives, and voluntary agencies have toiled over the years in the interests of the people for the elimination of misery and suffering. The minister is learned in another profession, but he has never been schooled in the centuries old traditions of the medical profession and those who have been associated with the science of healing.
I may say, Mr. Chairman, that it is becoming distasteful to read and to listen to the publicity given his department which is flaunted before the public as if health departments and health grants had never before existed. I give you an example of this type of publicity. The Globe and Mail of December 1, and I may say most of the other daily papers, but I specially mention this one, carries an article with the headline:
Ottawa grant $560,000, Martin praises hospital.
The Sick Children's Hospital of Toronto is a wonderful institution, and throughout the years has been doing marvellous work in the care of crippled children and those ill from other diseases. There are many people, not only in Toronto and the province of Ontario but also in the whole Dominion of Canada, who are grateful for what has been done for their children by the Toronto Hospital for Sick Children. It has been supported by the city of Toronto and the province of Ontario, and by donations from people throughout the province and the Dominion of Canada who
[Mr. Blair.1
are aware of the great work being done by the institution. They are aware of the wonderful work that has been accomplished in dealing with children, and we are all sympathetic with it.
I understand the cost of the extra accommodation required at the present time will be $12 million. The province of Ontario has made a grant of $2 million. The city of Toronto has made a grant of $1 million, and the Department of National Health and Welfare has made a grant of $560,000. There is a demand, not only in Toronto and Ontario but throughout the whole country, to provide further accommodation. No doubt such accommodation is going to cost a great deal of money. I cited the fact that it will cost about $12 million, but any person reading the headlines which have appeared in the press lately would be led to believe that it was a project of the federal government and of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
It would seem that every grant made by the department for hospital construction is the occasion for a rash of publicity in the press and over the radio. I congratulate the minister on backing up the financial appeal in connection with this hospital. I think it is a very worthy object; but on the other hand I think I have read or heard of every grant given under his administration, either over the radio or in the press. Evidently the minister does not believe in the old scriptural adage of hiding his light under a bushel.
I have not seen any references to the grants given for hospital construction by the province of Ontario, though those grants were in existence before May 15, 1948, when the federal grants were brought in, and are larger than the grants given by this government. While I am speaking on these grants I want to quote from page 6179 of Hansard for June 30, 1948, where the minister was being questioned by the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra (Mr. Green):


Howard Charles Green: May I ask a question? Who is to
make the decision about where the help is to be given? Is the dominion taking that responsibility?


Mr. Martin:: Oh, no . . .


Mr. Stephenson:: As I understand it, the grant
will be made by the dominion to the provinces as a lump sum. A municipality desiring assistance will have to make application to the provincial government. The federal government does not intend to allocate any moneys to any particular hospitals.' That will be decided by the province. Is that right? In other words, where a particular municipality is asking for some assistance for a particular hospital-
Then the minister interjected:


Paul Joseph James Martin: They should write to the provincial
government.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: *-the minister's position is that
they should unite to the provincial government?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.

It has become very tiresome to hear all this fanfare and publicity every time a grant is made. It would seem the 'minister has some desire to emulate Little Jack Horner in the children's story, because every time he sticks in his thumb and pulls out a plum he addresses the public and says, "What a good boy am I! Look what I have done!"
When I come to the question of a health policy for Canada, this is part and parcel of the policy of every political party in this house. We may not have the same ideas as to how we are to accomplish it, but we are all striving toward and looking forward to the same objective. The cost of hospitalization is high at the present time, and is becoming very difficult for people to pay. Anyone who has had experience in these matters knows how difficult it is to get a hospital bed even in the city of Ottawa; and this condition exists right across the country. Over the last week end I tried to get a patient into hospital, and I was told that the place was simply jammed and there was no accommodation whatever. It is a serious situation, sir, when a person who is ill and requires hospitalization and treatment is unable to obtain a bed in a hospital.	v
I mentioned the cost a moment ago. It is becoming beyond the means of the average person to pay for hospital care in a public ward, let alone a private room. Take a man in ordinary circumstances, living on his salary and owning his home. If he is faced with the cost of lengthy hospitalization for some member of his family he will probably end up with a mortgage on his house to pay the cost, and will have suffered a financial blow from which he may never recover. It is becoming more and more necessary that we take some forward step to implement some kind of plan that will give relief in this direction.
On political platforms during the last election campaign we heard a great deal about a health plan. We even heard the blame for the absence of that health plan laid on the doorstep of certain provinces. Not only during the period before June 27, but also in the Leeds by-election contest between the Progressive Conservatives and the Toronto Star this was brought prominently to the attention of the people by members of the Liberal party in this house. They were told that the failure of certain provinces to reach an agreement was the reason for the lack of any such plan.
In dealing with this matter of a health plan I liken the minister to an old-time practitioner who has been called in to treat a patient. After he has treated him for some time the family become anxious, because he
Supply-National Health and Welfare does not admit that the disease is new to him. So he says, "Well, just keep on giving him doses of my special soothing syrup at regular intervals, and some time within the next three or four years I may find a cure." It is part of the policy of this party to initiate a health plan for the people of this country. It is all very well to keep stating that a health plan is part of the policy of this government, but I point out to the minister that the very things we hope to eliminate by the introduction of such a plan are in existence at the present time. There is no holiday, Mr. Chairman, from misery and suffering.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we have all listened with keen interest, as we always do, to the remarks of the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair). He always brings to the debate, on health matters particularly, the experience he has gained as a medical doctor and also a very obvious interest in the welfare of our people.
We are glad to note that the estimates of the department for this year, which are now before us, are up by some $19,402,227 to a new high of $396,348,311. I suppose some will say it is an old cry on the part of some of us, but I still think it is basically true that if this amount of money indicates the proportion of our national wealth that we are prepared to spend on the work of this department, we have not yet become sufficiently health and welfare conscious in this country. I realize that this is not the grand total. In fact I read with interest some weeks ago the report of a speech by the minister in New York, I believe, in which he made the statement that we were now spending in Canada close to a billion dollars a year on health and welfare. I was interested in where he got that figure, in view of the fact that the total for his department is less than $400 million; but on more closely reading the report of his speech I gathered that he had in mind the amounts spent at all levels of government, and perhaps amounts spent privately as well.
Basically the problem in connection with health and welfare is a financial one, to put it in the terms we understand most readily; but the problem is even more basic than that. The fundamental question is, do we value the health and security of our 13 million Canadian people sufficiently to plan the use of all our resources so that a sufficient portion will be set aside to take care of all our needs in the field of health and welfare. The present minister should, and I hope he will, do his share of fighting within the cabinet of which he is a member for an ever larger proportion of the national income for this purpose. If before I am through I say some things that are a bit critical, I hope he will realize that
2630	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Health and Welfare we on this side of the house are trying to be helpful, and that we are backing him up in his claim that more of the wealth produced in this country should be diverted to improving the health and security of our people.
In connection with the whole question of health, we welcome every little step forward. I am sure that the minister will recall the enthusiasm with which this group greeted the announcement of the Prime Minister in May, 1948, even though we knew at the time it failed to go as far as had been indicated in the previous pronouncements of the party. Nevertheless, I feel that I must say again that, in our view, the steps that have been taken with regard to health are just a beginning. In fact, they must be criticized as woefully inadequate.
As I see it, there are three things that the people of our country need before we can say that we are diverting a sufficient proportion of the wealth we produce to the care of our health. First of all, there must be the necessary personnel and equipment. There must be the doctors, nurses, dentists, technicians and all the people who work in the health field. Along with those people, there must be a sufficiency of hospitals, clinics and laboratories, to which patients may go and in which research work may be undertaken. Until we have a sufficient supply of personnel and equipment to take care of the health needs of our people, there is no room for the boasting that has been so aptly characterized by the member for Lanark (Mr. Blair).
As I see it, in addition to having doctors, hospitals and facilities, there must be ways and means to enable our people to get the medical services they require. In other words, it is no use having the best trained doctors or the best equipped hospitals, if our people cannot afford to go to them. That means we must make some real strides in the field of health insurance. I shall not go into too much detail on that subject at this moment, because there is an item for health insurance studies, and when we reach it I should like to ask the minister some questions. I am afraid they are the same questions that have been asked from this corner for many years. I hope, however, we shall receive more satisfactory answers this year than we have had in the past.
The whole point of health insurance is to make it possible for our people to be in a position where they can afford the services that should be provided. The idea of health insurance is to spread the costs around. No one in this chamber tonight, and the same is true of any collection of people of this number, knows which of us will need hospital or medical care within the next few months

or next year. It is a certainty that a percentage of us will need it. It so often happens that the need hits those who can least afford to pay for it, and vice versa. Surely, it is the civilized, common-sense thing to do, to plan the provision of medical and hospital care on some over-all basis, so that we shall be able to avail ourselves of those services.
I feel that both of those requisites I have discussed so far, the provision of personnel and equipment, and health insurance to enable our people to pay for the services that should be available, are of extreme importance. I am not satisfied, and I think that is the view of all Canadians, not just the view of a person in political opposition, with the pace of the progress we are making. The member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) has had something to say about hospital construction, and the shortcomings there are in that phase of the matter. I have already indicated that the answers we have received in the past with respect to health insurance suggest that progress in that field is particularly slow.
In addition to having personnel and equipment, and having health insurance to enable our people to pay for medical and hospital services, it is also the case that a large section of our people need to have sickness benefits. By "sickness benefits" I do not mean merely insurance to enable the people to pay hospital and doctor's bills, but a benefit to take the place of the pay envelope which so often stops in time of illness. I know that there are people in our country, no doubt some of them in this chamber, to whom this whole idea of the community concerning itself in the health and welfare of all, this whole idea of social security, is somewhat repugnant. The plain fact of the matter is that in our modern, highly complex industrial economy, no man liveth unto himself; no one is able to provide for all the things that can happen to him beyond his own control. It has become true that we stand or fall together. The sooner we move forward along the line of these common-sense ideas in the field of health, which I have tried to outline, the better it will be for all concerned, and for the nation as a whole. I feel very strongly that that is the position that should be taken by this government in the field of health; that we should get all we can in the field of personnel and equipment, that we should get health insurance on the statute books of this country without delay, and that there should be sickness benefits for our people in time of illness.
When I mention the latter subject, it does go further. It calls for an over-all social security program, towards which we must move as rapidly as we can. For the moment,

Supply-National Health and Welfare
I was trying to relate it particularly to the whole question of health. As I have indicated, however, this whole question does go over into the field of social security which falls within the jurisdiction of the same minister. Once more, I feel that it is not just a matter of something someone says because he is in political opposition, but it is a plain statement of fact that our people are not satisfied with the snail's progress that is being made in the field of social security, particularly with respect to old age pensions. In that connection, Mr. Chairman, while the question of old age pensions is a many-sided one, including such aspects as the amount of the pension, the age of the recipient and the means test, I should like to concentrate a few moments of my time tonight on the means test. It seems to me that there is no excuse for going any further in the life of this parliament without that old age pension means test being removed. Oh, I know there was a time when it was thought to be a perfectly proper part of the old age pension legislation. But that day disappeared at least five or six years ago. As the hon. member for Lanark has said, we have reached the point where all political parties in this house advocate the removal of the means test from the old age pension. Not only is it the case that all political parties advocate it, but from my contacts with people back in the constituency and in the city from which I come, and from the number of letters that I am receiving on the subject, I am convinced that the means test is now the most obnoxious feature of the old age pension as it stands.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I have a duty in conducting these estimates through the committee. I do not want to interfere with the generality of the hon. member's discussion, but I suggest to him that we are now on the general item. There are specific items covering the matters with which he is now dealing. I do not rise to suggest that he should not go on, but I rise to point out that, inasmuch as the hon. gentleman himself is familiar with the rules and practices of the house, it might be better for him to wait until we reach the specific item that he wishes to discuss. What the hon. gentleman has said thus far has been fairly general but I suggest that, as to the particular item he is now on, we could deal more specifically with it when we come to the specific item which will be reached in due course.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am not quite sure whether the minister is raising a point of order or whether he is just making a suggestion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am just making a suggestion. I do not think I need to raise it as a point
of order. I just make the suggestion. I am sure it will commend itself to the hon. member because there is no man who knows the rules better than he does.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It seems to me that the minister's objection could hardly be raised as a point of order. After all, the item before us is the general administration of the whole department; it is not the general administration of the health branch or of the welfare branch. There are those items in the estimates as well. No objection was taken to my good friend the hon. member from Lanark making a general speech but nevertheless one in which he mentioned specific things such as the health grants and so on. It would seem to me that it might be better if we went on.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We shall have two debates; that is all.


The Chairman:: I think we should avoid the duplication of debates. We should not have two or three speeches on the same thing. In order to avoid that, it would be better to wait.


Angus MacInnis: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, we are discussing now the administration not of the health branch or of the welfare branch but of the Department of National Health and Welfare. The matter of old age pensions is a part of welfare. If you are going to rule out welfare, the next person who gets up and talks about health will have to be ruled out too; because on the basis on which you rule one out, you must rule the other out also. It is not a question of whether there is going to be one debate, two debates or three debates. It is a question of whether on this item you are going to allow such a debate on this subject as we have had on all other items, that is, covering the whole department.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In addition to what has been said by my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver East, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the practice of the house is fairly well established that on the first item of a department a general discussion is permitted. I would remind you, sir, that when we were on the estimates of the Department of National Defence we carried that general practice to quite an extreme. The first item in that department was a specific one, No. 239, grants to military associations, etc.; but because it wras the first item there was no question, and we had a discussion on national defence that ranged all over the world. I would think that it might actually facilitate discussion here to follow the same practice.
The Chahman: I did not make any ruling. There is no point of order before me.
2632	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Health and Welfare


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is fine. Then let me carry on.


Mr. Marlin:: But I suggest that the hon. member bear the suggestion in mind.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I might have been through if you had not interrupted.
What I was saying, Mr. Chairman, was that in the remarks I want to make now with respect to old age pensions I am concentrating on one phase of the subject. I feel that the amount should be higher. I feel that the age limit should be brought down. But at the moment I think that, to our Canadian people, the most obnoxious feature of the Old Age Pensions Act is the means test. I think that one of the reasons it is particularly obnoxious is what was done in the session just before the election. You will remember that at that time the amount of the pension was increased, and that move was most acceptable; but the ceiling on the total income that pensioners could have was left where it was. That had the effect of actually reducing the amount of other income that pensioners can have before their pensions are reduced.
For example, it used to be that a single person could have $20 a month other income before his pension was reduced. Now a single person can have only $10 a month other income before his pension is cut down. It used to be that a married couple could have $30 a month between them by way of other income before they suffered a reduction in the amount of their pension. Now a married couple can have only $10 a month other income, or $5 each, before the amount of their pension is reduced. I think the minister will have to face the fact that it is largely because that amount of other income was narrowed as it was that people have become more incensed than ever over the means test. The fact is that a great many more persons than formerly now feel the effect of the means test and it comes fairly hard.
In addition to that, the cost of living has continued to rise and our older people have found it even more difficult to live as the months have come and gone. They are now finding that it costs them more to rent quarters in which to live, and all of these things have added to the burden on our old people. While, with thousands of them, the real issue is a larger pension, still it is also true that with a great many thousands the means test is the issue, and it is the feature that seems so particularly mean. Even if they are suffering as a result of it, people try to understand the government's not being able to raise the pension to a higher amount. But they simply cannot understand the meanness of the means test which places a penalty on people for such
[The Chairman.]

thrift as they have been able to exercise. In addition to that, there has been brought to our attention in recent months the collective bargaining for pension rights that has gone on particularly in the United States where some firms have granted pensions to their employees as part of what they are working for. But in those cases the pension is related to the old age pension or the social security benefit provided in the United States. For example, some of the companies there have now provided that their employees will get, when they retire, a total pension of $100 a month. But it is understood that that pension is made up of what they get from their government social security plus an amount from the company to bring it up to $100 a month. Trade union workers in this country know that there is no point in their trying to get that kind of an arrangement here because if they did get a decent pension out of their employers, the means test would prevent them from getting the old age pension on top of it.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Does he not know that, in the pulp and paper industry of this country, at the age of sixty-five years all employees of a given number of years' service receive exactly that sum of $100 a month- and that is in Canada, let alone the United States.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I know that; and in addition to that there are a number of other employees who get reasonable pensions from the industries for which they work. But their total number in relation to the industrial population as a whole is a very small percentage.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I can give the number. There are 1,500,000 workers in the Dominion of Canada who are subject to pension privileges from industry in Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I did not bring my figures on this phase of the matter with me tonight, because I have put them on Hansard before.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You did not need to; I just gave them to you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member is now indicating the number of people who are contributing to pension plans at the present time?


Arthur Leroy Smith: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I question his figure, and in addition I would point out that he does not say-no doubt he does not know, because it would be hard to find out-the extent to which this pension plan to which they are contributing will be adequate for those people when they reach retirement age.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You mentioned $100 a month; that was the reason I interrupted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Granted. But my point is that such plans in the industrial field as are not adequate simply deny to these people the chance to get the old age pension, because of the means test.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Agreed; I do not argue about that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are on the same tack, then. For example, there are today in the constituency I represent a great many retired railway workers who receive small pensions from the Canadian Pacific or the Canadian National. In hundreds of cases their pensions are just enough to keep them from getting the old age pension. They see that other people who did not contribute to a pension plan are able, because they have nothing, to get the old age pension. These people who are receiving the pension to which they have contributed do not object to the other fellow, who needs it, getting it- not by a long shot. But they do feel that, since they have helped to build up the wealth of this country, and have paid taxes and the like, they should have the same privilege.
I urge upon the minister therefore that this is an extremely important issue which must be settled without further delay. During the election campaign of last May and June, to which reference is often made when debate in the house gets a bit warm, a great many members said they would fight for the elimination of the means test. I heard many Liberal candidates in my province say that that was one of the things they wanted to fight for-that the means test must go.
I have here an advertisement which appeared in the Vancouver News-Herald of June 13, 1949, advertising the candidacy of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. It says:
I will fight for a contributory retirement pension plan for all persons over sixty-five as a right. Pending the establishment of the foregoing act, I will fight for old age pensions to be paid to men of sixty-five and women of sixty without a means test, the pension to be large enough to ensure an adequate standard of living.
That is typical of the sort of thing that private Liberal candidates said throughout the country. What have they done about it since they came here? I want to be fair and say that you could not find a clear-cut promise like that in the official advertisements of the Liberal party which came from head office. The official advertising talked of what the party had done in the past. But 45781-168
Supply-National Health and Welfare the local candidates in the individual constituencies knew the score, and they made promises of this kind.
My hon. friends of the Progressive Conservative party made the same sort of statements, and so did Social Credit candidates. Certainly it has been our position in the C.C.F. for a long time. Well, what are we waiting for? It is unanimous. We all say that the means test is particularly iniquitous and that it should go. All right, let's get rid of it now.
I hope the Minister of National Health and Welfare in replying to this will not simply say, as he has said so often and so nicely in the past, that this still remains one of the objectives of government policy. We have had answers something like that ever since the failure of the dominion-provincial conference of 1945-46. The minister knows that one of the green book proposals at that time was that old age pensions should be raised from what they then were to $30 a month, and that it should be paid to all Canadians seventy years of age and over, without the means test. In addition to that it was to be paid 100 per cent by the federal government.
I suppose one can give a little credit to the federal government and say that they are now paying $30 of the $40 pension to those who are drawing it in full. But by Keeping the means test on many people do not get it in full. And it must be remembered that the cost of living has gone up a great deal since that proposal was made in August of 1945. That was a very commendable proposal; it brought hope to the hearts of many people. I would remind hon. members of the time it was made-two months after an election. The election was in June 1945, and in August, with the next election four years away, the government made the very interesting and worth-while proposal that the old age pension, so far as those seventy years of age and over were concerned, should be paid 100 per cent by the federal government, and without the means test.
We have reminded the minister of that proposal every chance we have had since that time; but the best we have been able to get from the minister, with his big broad smile, is that it still remains an objective of government policy. Well, let us not have any more of that this time. Let us not be told again that this cnange hinges upon a dominion-provincial conference and negotiations.
I am afrai:l that if we are not able, by hammering away, to get something done at this session or the next session, and if the government can get away without doing it
2634	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-National Health and Welfare
now, what will happen is that in the next election we shall have the issue of dominion-provincial relations out on the hustings, with some provinces being blamed for the government's not going ahead with its promise of 1949 or its promise of 1945.
Let the Minister of National Health and Welfare tonight, when he talks about this question, face the fact that, so far as the members of the House of Commons are concerned, we are unanimous. We want the means test done away with. We represent in that demand the views of our Canadian people from coast to coast. Let the minister not hedge about it; let him not be an artful dodger, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce called someone last night. Let us not have the statement that it is the objective of the government. Just let him tell us when it will be done, and nothing will have such complete and unanimous support from the House of Commons as the announcement I hope the minister will soon make, that the means test is to go.


Mr. Beyerslein:: Mr. Chairman, in looking over these estimates for the Department of National Health and Welfare it is obvious that provision has been made for almost everything except some allowance for incurables. I would remind the Minister of National Health and Welfare of the extreme necessity for some system of allowances for those unfortunate people who have lost their earning power through accident, through injury or through some incurable disease. Provision has been made to some extent for old age pensions and for family allowances. Grants are to be made to the Canadian Welfare Council, the Health League of Canada, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, the Victorian Order of Nurses and several others which I shall not mention. These are all worthy causes that are entitled to grants, but I suggest that the cause of the incurables is just as worthy of consideration.
Many of these people are not entirely helpless and with a little assistance they could do much toward earning their own living. I have here the Montreal Standard of November 19, 1949, which has an article dealing with leathercraft for tubercular patients. It gives the details of one patient who has been taught to manufacture handbags, wallets, belts and other articles and is thus able to earn his own living. There is no reason why we should not give assistance to these people in that way. Alberta has taken the lead in providing training for the victims of poliomyelitis, but we should go further than that.

This is more than a provincial matter. The unfortunate victims of these diseases and accidents are Canadian citizens and it is the duty of the federal government to provide means whereby they can be rehabilitated to earn their own living, or to provide allowances so that they will not have to depend on others for assistance. I urge the government to bring in a plan whereby these unfortunate people can be cared for.


Mr. Croll:: Mr. Chairman, I listened with close attention to the hon. member for Lanark who told us that the minister had his finger pretty well on the pulse of the people, and for a few minutes I should like to outline to the minister what I consider is in the minds of the people at the present time. I intend to devote myself entirely to the question of pensions and I assure you that I shall not speak again when the item covering pensions is being considered.
I want the minister to know that at least in my opinion the question of security pensions has become one of immediate importance on the domestic scene. Workers in this country are daily becoming more security-minded. They are thinking in terms of pensions, health insurance and retirement plans. I feel sure that they are prepared to let the state assume a greater responsibility for their lives, whatever risk that entails; I feel that the risk is negligible. I submit that the wider your social security, the more secure is your democracy.
In connection with old age pensions the people are particularly disturbed about the means test. They feel that under present circumstances the means test makes the old age pension a handout. It requires the recipient to acknowledge his poverty and is a throwback to the poor laws of the' last century. One writer has described it as penalizing thrift, invading privacy, and socially objectionable. I believe the vast majority of the Canadian people are unalterably opposed to the means test, and I share that view with them. I take this opportunity to reiterate my opposition to it, an opposition which stems from my very inception into public life.
The people are interested not only in individual security; they are interested in collective security. There is a feeling which I share that industry has an obligation to take care of the depreciation of the human machine in the same way that it makes provision for the depreciation of the plant machine. United States industry has already committed itself to industrial and private pensions. Making due allowance for a time

Supply-National Health and Welfare
lag, the workers in this country are now entitled to and must get the same sort of security pension.


Arthur Leroy Smith: And are getting it.


David Arnold Croll: They are not getting it.


Arthur Leroy Smith: They are indeed.


David Arnold Croll: They are getting pensions of a sort.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am sorry, I thought that was what you meant.


David Arnold Croll: I should like to point out to the committee some of the statements that have been made by people who deal with pensions. According to the Toronto Star of September 30, 1949, George Burt, top man of the United Automobile Workers of Canada, said:
Pensions are the number one issue on our program this year.
Then Pat Conroy, referring to pensions, said:
This is a good start in laying the foundation for adequate social security for our workers. We have advised all our unions to include pension plans in their program this year.
Then George Burt made a further statement on September 14 that they were determined they would not accept anything less than the results of the negotiations in the United States.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That is not a government pension.


David Arnold Croll: I am leading up to that. I point out that it will be impossible to refuse a pension to a Ford worker in Windsor when a Ford worker in Detroit receives it. It will be impossible to refuse a pension to a General Motors worker in Oshawa, when a General Motors worker in Pontiac receives it. They are both doing the same work, under the same conditions, for the same company.
I am aware that our pension problem is constitutionally involved, and that is one reason why I am speaking out tonight. A dominion-provincial conference is to be held some time in January. Not only must matters of jurisdiction and constitution be studied and discussed, they must be resolved. Unless we are able by the next session of parliament to give guidance and leadership in the matter of pensions we shall leave ourselves open to piecemeal, hodgepodge, unsatisfactory systems which will cover this country like a crazy quilt. I point this out to the minister. Pensions in Canada today lack uniformity. In the future if they are hammered out by collective bargaining they will in some Instances lack stability. They will have the
tendency to create problems for us rather than solve them. In the end they may not even give the security that they set out to give. What I am saying to the government tonight is that they must give leadership in the pension field. The government must set the pattern for a basic adequate pension. I know it is a great responsibility, and it calls for leadership now.
It may be that some people in the country think that we have gone too fast and too far already with social security. I do not share that view, and I do not think there are many who think that we should not now have a contributory form of old age pension. I am not one of those who are particularly disturbed by what happened in New Zealand a few days ago. What is good will remain, and it is hard at this distance to diagnose exactly what did happen. Nor was I disturbed when South Africa changed governments and took on a fascist tinge. I am more impressed by, and I think I shall learn more lessons from, the referendum on old age pensions that took place in the state of California, and the direct vote on the welfare state which took place in the state of New York. Both of these are much closer to the thinking of our people. As to contributory old age pensions, private and industrial pensions and health insurance, we have not gone far enough nor have we gone fast enough. Certainly there is need for integrating and co-ordinating the various systems that now exist, and which must be augmented by contributory old age pensions. It is true I have always been a partisan with respect to social security. Nevertheless I emphasize and want to impress again upon the government the importance of deciding on an all-embracing social security program which will give broad leadership in the confused problem of pensions. If we do not give leadership, if we continue to bicker over constitutional rights, the workers will take the solving of the problem upon themselves, and will hammer out the very best deal they can make.
Every member of the house realizes that industrial pensions have burst suddenly upon the United States scene. We have got a little time, and we can use it by doing some hard and fruitful thinking. Are we to have a contributory old age pension immediately? Are we to have industrial pensions, at least where companies are subsidiaries of United States companies, on the same basis as they have them in the United States? If industrial pensions are to be supplemented pensions, as they are in the United States, then I ask: supplementary to what and at what age? We must realize that we really have not got a
45781-168J
2636	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Health and Welfare basic pension in Canada. We must do something to bring that about as quickly as we can. All I have to suggest is that between now and the time we meet again in two or three months the government should apply itself and do some hard thinking upon the very important problem with which we are now faced. We must find some solution for it; it must be solved in some way. We cannot just let it go along in any fashion at all, because we will find we will pay for it in years to come a price that we may well regret.
I repeat, my chief purpose is to point out that these are the two problems that require a solution as quickly as possible. I trust that whatever I have said will at least bring them to the forefront. I hope when we meet once again at the next session the government will have something to propose to us and to the people of the country in order to give them guidance and leadership on this most important social security program.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to speak tonight on old age pensions, and I only do so for a moment because I have another subject I wish to discuss with the minister. I point out to myself and to others some difficulties that must be in the government's way in bringing in an over-all plan covering contributory old age pensions for everybody without a means test. I know that actuaries can give an answer having regard to certain schemes which are in vogue in many industrial companies, and which are growing daily. The hon. member for Spadina referred to Detroit and Windsor, and as we know there is a controlled subsidiary carrying on in Windsor in the province of Ontario. We know that history proves that what is adopted in one place so far as industrial relations are concerned is surely adopted in the other, and today they are on practically an even basis in the matter of employee treatment.
I am not big enough or smart enough to tell the minister how to treat outstanding pensions in our railways, banks and industrial companies. The hon. member for Spadina will recall that the concession at Detroit was only made a very short time ago. In other words, he is also aware that, so far as labour is concerned, the question of remuneration has changed largely from one of wages to one of security. One need only take that great union, the United Mine Workers of America, which was perhaps in the forefront of the new labour effort. I am not deriding it at all. If one believes in collective bargaining one must believe that strong unions are entitled to bargain, and if they do not get assistance from governments they must use the only weapons they have. When I hear somebody


has gone on strike I am not one of those people who immediately condemn them. I know they are using perhaps their only and certainly their best weapon to get what they think is their fair share from the earned industrial dollar. Together with the hon. member for Spadina I am and have for some time been in favour of a contributory pension which will look after not only organized labour but all our people, and particularly the white-collar workers who have no one to speak for them in this country because they are not organized.
You know, when John L. Lewis proposes something it is very easy to say, "Oh, that man again". Perhaps we use language a little more lurid than that; but if we are to be fair we must remember the condition of the miner in the United States and Canada before John L. Lewis rose to the top of that organization. To the shame of everyone, employer and public at large, those miners existed in a state which was disgraceful. Everything they got was obtained from the company store; they paid such prices as the company cared to charge; and until very recent years they lived in what were called company houses. I dislike lurid language, but they were practically wage slaves of the employers. Lewis now has a big head and thinks he runs the world, but I cannot help remembering the great advance in the comfort and incomes of the people who followed him.
I have already said I had no intention of speaking on the matter of pensions, but I do want to deal with one other subject, not in any super-critical fashion but in the hope that when the minister takes part in this debate he will deal with it at some length. I refer to the disease known as arthritis, on which I have had something to say every year since coming here in 1945. It may be that what I say tonight will be repetitive, though I hope not.
You can look at this matter in two harsh ways, if you like. The first is from the point of view of the time lost to the nation by people suffering from this illness. The figure given by the minister last session was 600,000 people suffering from that disease; I do not mean crippled, but suffering to the extent that they are unable to carry on their duties normally and earn a living, irrespective of the field of endeavour in which they were engaged. I assume that figure has increased since it was mentioned early last spring; but since that time I have had an experience which, if I were to consult only my own feelings, I should say I wish I had never undergone. Having interested myself in this matter I went to the town of Banff, where I

went through a hospital. It was not a large institution; I would not think there were more than seventy to one hundred people in the whole place.


Murdo William Martin: That would be Dr. Robinson's hospital?


Mr. Smiih (Calgary Wesl):: Dr. Robinson and his two sons are operating that hospital, and the father was good enough to take me through. I might add that this was after tfie election in June. There I saw things that would wring the heart of anyone. I am not going to mention many of them, but I wonder how many hon. members have gone through an institution like that. You are introduced to a patient who may be in bed or sitting up or perhaps even walking. The first thing that would occur to any of us, having been introduced, would be to shake hands; but when I put out my hand to a dear old lady I found she could not shake hands with me. All she could do was put her fist in my hand. Both hands were so tightly closed with this terrible disease that they were simply fists, and of course immediately I saw the swelling in the knuckles and joints.
I will admit that I was rather taken aback. I had been talking about this illness in the House of Commons. I knew the odd friend who was suffering from it, and had sustained a considerable dose of it myself. Then I went on and Dr. Robinson took me to a verandah, where I saw a little girl six years of age with the most beautiful face I have ever seen. I do not think I am exaggerating in that statement, because we all know that suffering often creates beauty, particularly in children. There she was with both legs and both arms utterly useless, with no development whatever. That child was in a condition from which, of course, she could never recover, so great was the hold the disease had taken upon her.
Then I saw a boy, to whom I spoke for quite a while. He was seventeen years of age, and looked fine. He shook hands with me and seemed quite happy. I said to Dr. Robinson, "I thought these were all arthritics." He replied, "Just a moment," and pulled down the blanket. Then he said, "Look at that knee." That seventeen-year old boy had a knee as big as a child's soccer ball. By that time I was pretty well sunk; but the doctor said, "Would you feel it?" I thought that I was being a little forward, but the lad laughed and said, "I don't mind, Mr. Smith," so I took my fingers, as I had seen the doctor do, and rapped that knee as I am rapping the desk now. It was solid bone. That boy of seventeen years was crippled for life; there was nothing they could do with that leg
Supply-National Health and Welfare except cut it off. There just was not and is not anything known to science which would be of any help to that young fellow.
Then I talked with the three doctors there. Since then I have talked with others, including my good friend from Lanark. As I understand it, the medical view is that we have advanced to the point where much can be done by way of special exercises and that sort of thing for people suffering from this disease but not completely crippled by it. But-and I make this statement with some timidity-as yet there is nothing known in the world about the cause. I know there is a kind which is not unusual; that is the traumatic type. Some of you who have played football may have a knee or some other joint which was injured, and an arthritic condition may immediately result. But as far as my inquiries have gone there just is not anything known about the origin of the rheumatoid kind, particularly where the disease is muscular. It appears to resemble rheumatism; that is where the phrase "rheumatoid arthritis" came from; but as yet we have found out practically nothing about it.
I am happy to learn that at an institution which I visited a little over a year ago some fine men have developed something which is called cortisone. It is developed in such minute quantities that it is not available as yet for the ordinary person, although I was happy to see in the newspaper the other day that these people were good enough to give Canadian research people some of it. The minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe our Canadian research people received a small portion of this drug in order that they might do some work on it. I believe it is derived from a gland in hogs, but you have to kill more hogs than can be killed in Chicago to get enough of this thing. The world is now searching, therefore, for something from which this drug might be produced synthetically.


Murdo William Martin: Would the hon. member permit an interruption? This is an important matter, and I do not think I am over-exaggerating when I say that. I remember on one occasion I made a statement in this house, as a result of which many letters were received from many people who were suffering from this illness. As a result of that I thought that thereafter, whatever I would say about it, would be said only after the most careful consideration. There may be some people in this country who will form a judgment, from the last remark of the hon. member, that would not be justified under all the circumstances.
I know he shares with me the desire to refrain from stating any more than the actual situation. I am not criticizing, but I felt if I did

Supply-National Health and Welfare not say something now these remarks would be misconstrued and raise false hopes, at a time when I think the situation requires clarification. I propose to do that at the first opportunity.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I appreciate the interjection of the hon. minister, and I shall now try to see to it that nothing in my remarks will raise those false hopes.
I was just about to say that this drug is, in no sense as yet, a cure. The most that one can say about it is that it does give temporary relief. I believe that is what the minister had in mind. I believe a great deal more work has to be done upon it. It cannot be regarded as a cure, or even a palliative for general use.
I believe, Mr. Minister, I have gone as far as anyone can go in endeavouring to protect you from what you might have feared.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think your statement is extremely helpful.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Thank you. I mention that to show that successful work is being done, and I hope that some day there will be a corrective medicine for arthritics which will be what insulin has become for the diabetic. We well remember that insulin was not produced in a moment. It was produced after great study and research by Canadians working in the university of Toronto laboratories.
I turn now to this: Surely, there must be some way we can find the cause. It is not good enough to say that if you get this disease we can relieve those pains. I know a little bit about arthritic pain. The hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Robinson), if he were here and could rise on that arthritic knee of his, would agree with everything I have said up to the moment. I hope that when the minister takes up this subject he will devote some time to telling us what we in Canada are doing, not only in attempting to relieve a condition that is not permanent, but with respect to finding the cause. Mr. Chairman, the minister has nodded his head to indicate he is going to speak, so I shall conclude my remarks.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the hon. gentleman. While I had intended to make a statement with regard to these matters at a later time, in view of the importance of this matter mentioned by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) I believe I should make that statement now so that his remarks will be associated with mine, having in mind the danger I mentioned a moment ago.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Can I say anything more? I shall do so if you desire.


Murdo William Martin: No; what the hon. gentleman said was very helpful. There is a tremendous amount of interest, not only in this country, but all over the world, in the discovery of cortisone. As my hon. friend will see, we in the department have shared that interest in this problem with the people, and with the medical profession generally.
During the past year, medical research scientists have discovered that two new dirugs, ACTH and cortisone, seem to have extremely valuable results in the treatment of a number of diseases. It should be emphasized that the work that has been carried on now for some months is still in the experimental stage, and no final decisions have yet been reached on the full effects of these drugs, or of the illnesses and diseases for which they can effectively be used.
In April of this year, Dr. Philip Hench of Mayo clinic gave a public demonstration to medical scientists of the effects of the use of cortisone on arthritic patients. The results were almost miraculous, and because of this the drug cortisone has been associated popularly with arthritis. It should be emphasized, however, that this drug has not yet proved itself even for this single disease. It should also be emphasized that it seems to show promise for other diseases also.
I may say that I have had the advantage of personally talking-with Dr. Cameron, my deputy minister on the health side-with Dr. Hench and Dr. Kendall, both of whom must share the glory of what is undoubtedly a discovery of the first importance. It was shortly afterwards-after this research carried on by these two men-that the announcement was made about the drug ACTH, which seems to show similar promise, not only for arthritis but for other diseases. I must point out, and I say this with great emphasis, that both Dr. Kendall and Dr. Hench asked me whenever we made our statement-they asked the surgeon-general of the United States when he made his statement and the Merck Company, who will have something to do with it-to indicate that both ACTH and cortisone are in extremely short supply. At the present time the quantities available are not even sufficient for experimental purposes. There is no immediate prospect that the quantities that can be produced will exceed the needs of research workers, who are finding out the full effects of these drugs and subjecting them to prolonged tests. Both compounds are extremely difficult to produce. It has taken many years for research chemists to discover the various stages essential for their preparation. For example, the synthesis of cortisone requires several months

and thirty-seven individual stages of preparation that can only be carried out by highly skilled steroid chemists.
The history of ACTH goes back to the early 1920's when Dr. P. E. Smith in the United States discovered the influence of the anterior pituitary gland on the adrenal cortex. In 1933 a Canadian scientist, Dr. J. B. Collip, now dean of the medical school at the university of Western Ontario, prepared a comparatively pure extract from anterior pituitaries which was capable of replacing the pituitary gland in its power of influencing the adrenal cortex. Among many other scientists active in the development of ACTH, another Canadian, Dr. C. N. H. Long, formerly of McGill university, worked with Sayers and White at Yale university in obtaining purified ACTH from sheep and swine anterior pituitary glands. This discovery was simultaneous with that made by Li and Evans at the university of California. In 1948, Dr. C. H. Li and Dr. H. M. Evans worked out an analysis of ACTH to show that it possibly could be produced synthetically.
ACTH can be produced from the pituitary glands of sheep, cattle and swine. Swine glands have been shown to be the most productive. Other sources are under investigation.
Preparations are now actively going forward in the Department of National Health and Welfare, in the food and drug division, to set up acceptable assay standards to check the potency of ACTH produced in Canada or imported into Canada.
The story of cortisone is similar to that of ACTH. It was in 1925 that Drs. Rogoff and Stewart of Harvard university showed that an extract of the adrenal cortex of animals would prolong the survival time of animals that had had their adrenal glands removed. In 1930 Hartman, formerly of the university of Toronto, and Brownell; and Swingle and Pfiffner independently discovered a method of extraction of the adrenal compound cortin which served as the basis for commercial production.
Because of what is undoubtedly going to be a matter of the greatest importance, in making this statement I wanted to put on record the participation of some of our own Canadian medical scientists. In 1934, the Connaught Laboratories of Toronto was one of the three laboratories that pioneered in the production of cortin which is used in the treatment of Addison's disease.
The story of the development of cortisone is long and involved. This can be understood when it is realized that cortisone is simply one out of twenty-eight different compounds that have been isolated from the adrenal
Supply-National Health and Welfare cortex. Among the many scientists in the United States and Canada who contributed to the development of cortisone, the name of Dr. E. C. Kendall of the Mayo clinic is perhaps best known. I would want to say at once to him and to Dr. Hench that I am quite sure I speak for the Canadian people when I say that we have learned of the development of this story with the greatest interest, and our gratitude to them will of course know no bounds. We appreciate the great collaboration, the promise and the actual help that has been given in making certain guarantees that production, if and when that takes place, will be available to Canada.
Among Canadians who have made important contributions to the development of cortisone are Dr. R. D. H. Heard and Dr. J. S. L. Browne, both of McGill university; and also Dr. Hans Selye of the university of Montreal. The contribution made by these Canadian scientists to the development of cortisone is similar to that made in the development of ACTH by Dr. J. B. Collip, now head of the medical school at the university of Western Ontario, and Dr. James Campbell of the university of Toronto. Dr. L. I. Pugsley, chief of the food and drug laboratory in our own department, was coworker with Dr. Collip when he prepared a substance which was one of the steps towards the development of ACTH.
In the food and drug laboratory of the Department of National Health and Welfare, in addition to Dr. Pugsley there is Mr. W. D. Snair, who took his M.Sc. degree with Dr. James Campbell of the university of Toronto whom I have just mentioned. As a result, this department is now going forward actively with plans to establish assay techniques to check both cortisone and ACTH. There are a number of sources for cortisone, some well established, others in the experimental stage.
Now I simply want to say one or two further things in connection with this matter. On Monday last, Merck and Company Limited, with head offices in this country and in the United States, announced at Rahway, New Jersey, that it believes increased production of cortisone will enable it to supply various teaching medical centres with limited quantities for research purposes. The company has noted that cortisone shows promise of relief of certain types of arthritis, acute rheumatic fever and certain other diseases and that the compound will be available after January 1. I must clearly indicate the position, because already requests quite naturally are coming in from all over the country asking for some of this cortisone.

Supply-National Health and Welfare I can say nothing about the future, but at the present time what quantity will be available to us-and it will be made available to us after January 1

will be solely for experimental research purposes. But every effort that we know how to make is going to be made to see if there cannot be acceleration of the process of production and of research into further uses. We have established contacts with a number of medical men who are expert in this field and who have had contacts with Dr. Kendall and Dr. Hench and the scientific committee that has been established in the United States. I want to give to hon. gentlemen and to this country the assurance that no effort is going to be spared to do all that can possibly be done through this department, more particularly through Canada's research scientists on whom the development really rests. No effort will be spared. I hope perhaps before the end of next week to say something further in that connection but at this stage I feel that I should await the result of certain conferences that are taking place elsewhere before I make that announcement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister one question in connection with that statement? Perhaps I should say: Is it fair to ask him if he could indicate any of the other diseases that it is thought that either of those drugs might help to cope with?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I could, but I do not think it is desirable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will not press the question.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman-


Alphonse Fournier: Before the hon.
member speaks, may I suggest that we report progress because we have to present a committee report to the house, and I see it is nearly eleven o'clock.


Clarence Gillis: Then this item will stand?


Alphonse Fournier: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before that is done, on a question of privilege, may I call the attention of the hon. member for Calgary West to a report put out by the dominion bureau of statistics with regard to pension plans. I admit that the report is for the year 1947, but it is the latest one available. It was published only this year. It shows that the total number of employees in all industries covered by pension plans is 629,233. That is a far cry from the million and a half the hon. member mentioned a while ago. I thought that since I questioned his figure I should give him the source of my information.


Arthur Leroy Smith: On the question of privilege, if I am wrong I am sorry; but

as a matter of fact the pulp and paper industry has come in since that time, and there are at least three or four hundred thousand engaged in that business. So it may be that when we get to 1949 I shall not be so far wrong.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BANKING AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
Second report of the standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Cleaver.

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will take up as the first item of business the amendments to Bill No. 12, ot establish the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation; then we will take up Bill No. 215, to amend the Dominion-Provincial Tax Rental Agreements Act, 1947; Bill No. 219, to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act; Bill No. 200, to amend the Customs Act. Then we will go into supply and call the estimates of the Department of Labour, reconstruction and supply, national revenue and mines and resources; and from eight to nine private bills.


Howard Charles Green: I would suggest to the minister that there should not be a sitting tomorrow night. We have had a very heavy week, sitting eight hours each day. After all, we are here to do the business of the country, and it is a difficult matter for the parties in opposition to do their work properly if the house is going to sit on Saturday evening. We have to have some time to prepare for the work which will come up.
I do suggest the house should not sit tomorrow night. I believe if that sitting is dispensed with we shall make better progress next week. We are all just as anxious to get home as are the members of the government; but the situation is that it is simply impossible to carry on efficiently under this pressure, unless some time is given to prepare the work.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is inhuman.


Angus MacInnis: May I add my voice to that of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, and ask the minister to adjourn at six o'clock tomorrow night. I do not think he will make any more progress by keeping us here for the evening; because we are being worn ragged here twelve hours a day-and we have other work to look after as well. If the minister insists upon keeping us here I am afraid that in the temper we shall be in he will not make much progress. I would suggest therefore that, for harmony all round, we be allowed to have the night off.


Mr. Low:: May I add my voice to the pleas which have been made to the house leader. I think that if we sit tomorrow until six o'clock we shall have done a pretty fair week's work; and I would ask that he be just a little sympathetic.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The government should make it unanimous.


Clarence Gillis: The house leader might do this: There are the faithful fifty who spend every night here; why not get another shift from the crowd who are not here. Let them sit tomorrow night.
Business of the House


Alphonse Fournier: I shall certainly call the remarks of hon. members to the attention of the Prime Minister. When the motion was passed by the house it was understood that we would sit on Saturday nights. On the first Saturday we did not sit during the evening-


Stanley Howard Knowles: That would be a precedent.


Alphonse Fournier: I am not too sure about that. At all events I hope hon. members do not expect a definite answer tonight. At some time tomorrow I shall tell the house what the decision is.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Saturday, December 3, 1949