1950-03-16

THE LATE MAURICE HARTT

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: 
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of lhe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate myself and the members of the party to which I belong with this tribute of respect to the memory of a very gallant member of this house. I use the word "gallant" advisedly, because it is well known to all hon. members that he suffered greatly during the last year and a half or more, and his illness was such as to call for a high degree of courage. His presence in this house in itself was a manifestation of that courage.
I did not have the privilege of knowing Mr. Hartt for the number of years that he was known to many other hon. members, but I do know that his industry and the stand he took on public affairs had won the regard and the admiration of members in all parts of the house. It perhaps was both natural and fitting that a man who came originally from a country which has suffered so much under the tyranny of communism should have identified himself so vigorously with a campaign against communism in this country.
In his passing this house has lost a man who, whatever other grounds of difference there might be in political opinion, certainly represented the common viewpoint in regard to the preservation of our system of democracy and the traditional institutions which we wish to preserve.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, in remembering the late Mr. Hartt I think it is a tribute both to his ability and to the opportunities provided by this country that, having come from Roumania, he should have achieved the distinction of membership in the legislature of Quebec and in this parliament.
As occasionally I sat here listening to him I admired his ability to use both the English and the French language, as well as, of course, his mother tongue and I believe related languages. We wish to join with all others in the house in expressing sympathy to his widow and his sons in their bereavement.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, it is a cause for deepest regret that a man should be taken from our, midst at the early age of fifty-four. At that age a man

The late Mr. Maurice Hartt has acquired just enough knowledge and wisdom to be of real value to any body of legislators with which he might be connected.
Mr. Hartt proved himself to be very sincere, a man of great courage, as was pointed out, and a man disposed to face facts as they are. These things I believe constitute a great tribute to his memory.
This group desires to join with those who have already spoken in expressing our deep sympathy with the bereaved ones, and our appreciation of a fellow member who has gone.


Mr. David A. Croll (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker,
I speak from a sense of personal loss. I knew Maurice Hartt, having first met him twenty-five years ago when he came to the counties of Essex and Kent to speak on behalf of an old friend of mine, Eddie Odette, who was running in the constituency. I remember on that occasion hearing him speak at Tilbury and Belle River, and speaking in most fluent French. Then, as in later years, he was a most forceful speaker.
Our paths did not cross often. However, we met again in Ottawa in 1947, when he recaptured Cartier for Canadians. On account of ill health he seldom spoke in the house, but he did make some fiery and worth-while contributions to the cause which was closest to his heart-establishment and recognition of the state of Israel.
He was a man of intense loyalties-loyalty to his country, loyalty to his party, loyalty to his religion; and he was fiercely loyal to his friends. His great interest in life was the people in his riding of Cartier. There were many underprivileged people there who made many demands upon him. He met those demands as well as any member could have met them.
It is interesting to note the statistics in Cartier. That riding has a very high member-mortality rate. Public service had shared much of Mr. Hartt's life. In 1939 he was a member of the legislature of Quebec. He came to this house in 1947, but he took up community life in the city of Montreal from the time he graduated from Queen's and moved to Montreal.
To the public lifd of this country he gave a mind that was keen and thoughtful and a heart that was kind and considerate. He was a man who loved a fight, giving as he got. As recently as Monday of this week I received a cheerful and buoyant letter from him telling me of plans he had in mind for the future. Hon. members will appreciate what a shock it was to me when yesterday afternoon I was informed he had passed on.


I saw him a few times during his illness. From our conversations I feel sure he would want me to say what I am now going to say. I wish particularly to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), you, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), for their thoughtfulness and kindness to Mr. Hartt during his long illness.
May I join with hon. members in extending deepest sympathy to his wife and children. He leaves to them a cherished memory of a very high reputation earned in the service of his country.


Mr. J. S. Sinnott (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I would be remiss in my duty if I failed to join in paying tribute to the memory of the late member for Cartier, who was my roommate for some considerable time.
I, too, wish to express my sympathy to Mrs. Hartt and her two sons. It is tragic to learn that at the early age of fifty-four years a man of Mr. Hartt's calibre should have been called. As his former roommate I had the opportunity for many discussions with him about the hard knocks one sometimes gets in life. I am sure those who have known him will miss his pleasant smile.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lamblon West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Yesterday, in view of the threatened strike at the Polymer Corporation, because of representations made to me I asked the following question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe):
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It is based on a dispatch in today's Globe and Mail, and also on a telegram which I have just received. The dispatch indicates a threatened strike of employees of Polymer Corporation which would involve all the major industries in Sarnia. Is the Minister of Trade and Commerce prepared at this time to make a statement to the house?
I asked the question because it affected not only the major industries in the city of Sarnia, but also those in western Ontario, inasmuch as the plant supplies electricity to the extent of about 40,000 horsepower. This was the answer given at that time by the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
Mr. Speaker, I have had no report today from the Polymer Corporation, but a few days ago it was reported to me that a conciliation board had been sitting on a labour-management dispute, and that the board had brought in a unanimous finding which the management intended to accept. What has developed since I cannot say. The management of the corporation handle their own labour negotiations. From what I know of the relations between

the management and labour at Polymer I can assure my hon. friend that there is not likely to be a strike.
My interpretation of the minister's answer was-except for the last few words which are so important-that there would be no strike. Having received the minister's answer, I wired the union at Sarnia accordingly. My interpretation of what the minister said was borne out by a press report in the Globe and Mail of today's issue, which states:
Trade Minister Howe said today he could assure the Commons that there will be no strike at the government-owned Polymer rubber corporation at Sarnia.
I understand that the only other morning paper in western Ontario, the London Free Press, carries the same interpretation of the reply given by the minister.
Inasmuch as there is a vast difference between "there will be no strike" and "there is not likely to be a strike", I wonder if in view of the seriousness of the situation, in case there should be a strike, the minister would clarify the record.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, obviously if the the hon. member will read what I said it will be clear that I was expressing an opinion. Whether I said that there would in my opinion be no strike, or that there was not likely to be a strike, is, I think, immaterial. My hon. friend may make the headlines in his local paper, but I do not think he has thrown much light on the situation.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I think it is more serious than that.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Joseph Warner Murphy: The statement made by the minister does not clarify the question I asked. The point I am raising now is in substantiation of what I said a moment ago. What the minister said yesterday is not borne out by what appears in Hansard.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I submit that there are certain questions which are so obviously a matter of public interest that no narrow interpretation of the practice should' apply. In this particular case there is involved a plant which is not only a crown corporation producing certain important products, but supplies steam to many vital industries in the area, and electricity to the hydroelectric system throughout that part of Ontario. I should think that it is a matter of considerable importance, not only to the members of this house but to the people of western Ontario, to know whether there is or is not going to be a strike which will have effects that will go far beyond the Polymer plant.


An hon. Member:: Where is the privilege?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think it should be obvious to every hon. member that I cannot anticipate with certainty human behaviour. There are 800 men on the payroll of the Polymer plant, and they will determine whether or not there will be a strike. From my knowledge of labour conditions since the plant began operations I expressed the opinion that there would be no strike. All I can do is to give an opinion.


Mr. Graydon:: You did not say it was an opinion yesterday.



RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES CHANGE IN PERSONNEL OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works) moved:: That the name of Mr. Ward be substituted for that of Mr. Weaver on the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1950, was presented by Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: May
I direct a question to the Prime Minister? Has any decision been reached as to when it is proposed the house will rise for Easter? I think many hon. members who live long distances away want to make their transportation reservations.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The matter has been under consideration, and I understand that the government whip is going to communicate with the whips of the other parties. The present suggestion is that when the house adjourns on the Thursday before Easter it shall stand adjourned until the Monday after Easter week, but there has been no formal decision. The views of the various groups are to be ascertained, almost at once, before the formal decision is reached.



OIL AND GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. C. Stewart (Yorkton):: I should like to direct the following questions to the
792	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister erf Trade and Commerce. Have any representations been made to him by the C.C.F. government of Saskatchewan with regard to protecting Saskatchewan so far as export of oil and gas from Alberta is concerned? What is the policy of the minister with regard to the granting of permits for pipe lines from Alberta to the United States?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The answer to the first question is that I have no knowledge of any representations from the province of Saskatchewan in that connection. In answer to the second question I would say that I spoke on this subject at the last session of parliament, and pointed out that the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act is designed to protect Canadian consumers. It is necessary under the act for the Minister of Trade and Commerce to give a certificate to the effect that the present and foreseeable future needs of Canada are protected before any exports of electricity or gas are permitted. It has been suggested frequently in the current debate that gas will be sent to the United States from the pipe line before the pipe line reaches Vancouver. I stated last session that that would not be permitted. I know from discussions with the sponsors of the pipe line that it is not proposed to undertake any such export.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: I know from
discussions-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Sit down; you have said enough on this subject.


Arthur Leroy Smith: -that just the opposite has been said.



JAPANESE GOODS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of complaints by Canadian businessmen and others, are any steps being taken by the government to see that Japanese goods, including men's shirts, are not dumped on the Canadian market at prices below the real cost, thus endangering the livelihood of our Canadian workmen?


Gordon Graydon: Look out that you don't lose your shirt over this.


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: I am hanging on to mine. Goods have been appraised and additional duties


assessed pending the outcome of inquiries which are now being made as to the fair market value in Japan.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The fair market value in Japan would not-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: -protect us here.



JAPANESE PEACE TREATY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: May I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs? Is there to be a commonwealth conference in the near future to deal with proposals for a treaty of peace with Japan?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Not that I know of, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member may be thinking of a report that came out of London the other day that there would be commonwealth talks on this subject in London. We discussed at the Colombo conference the principles that might underlie and the provisions that might be included in the Japanese peace treaty when a Japanese peace conference is held. Those discussions were not completed and it was agreed they would be continued on an official level through our experts on this subject. I believe that in rthis way a further exchange of views may take place before long among members of the commonwealth concerned.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Will the minister inform the house whether there is any justification in fact for the article appearing in the Globe and Mail of March 15, wherein certain officials of the Blue Cross organization charge tardiness in the treatment of veterans or others entering D.V.A. hospitals?


Hon. Milion F. Gregg (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: My hon. friend kindly sent me notice of his question, but I only received it as I entered the house; consequently I have not had time to read the article to which he refers. I think it would answer his question if I were to say that I know of no charges from anywhere regarding, to quote my hon. friend's question, "tardiness in the treatment of veterans or others entering D.V.A. hospitals".



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES PERMIT FROM UNITED STATES TO CALL AT TAMPA, FLORIDA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Knapman Fraser: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. As the President of the United States signed the approval this week for Trans-Canada Air Lines to fly between Montreal and Toronto, and Port of Spain, Trinidad, by way of Tampa and St. Petersburg, Florida, will the minister say whether the press dispatches are correct in stating that this permit was given to Trans-Canada Air Lines as the outcome of the application by T.C.A. to fly a direct Montreal-New York route?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The President of the United States has signed a permit which will permit Trans-Canada Air Lines to make a traffic call at Tampa, Florida, en route to Nassau and Jamaica. Although possibly having some relation, it is a different application from the one pending, which if granted will permit Trans-Canada Air Lines to fly from Montreal to New York.



DR. LEOPOLD INFELD KNOWLEDGE OF ATOMIC ENERGY    PLANS TO TEACH IN WARSAW

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to a matter, not by way of a question but under the general provision as to matters of public interest. It is one that I think should be brought immediately to the attention of the government, in view of the possible implications. It is also a matter that should be of common concern to the whole house.
In the issue of The Ensign dated March 18 there is a statement on page 3 headed: "Einstein aide plans to teach in Warsaw." The subheading is:	"Communist Poland
recalls Toronto Varsity scientist." In the article there is the statement that Dr. Leopold Infeld, who is a teacher of mathematics at the university of Toronto, has announced that he is to proceed to Warsaw to teach in the universities there, and to make plans for certain educational programs in cooperation with the government of Poland. The article further discloses the fact that, and I quote:
. . . he is thoroughly familiar with the theory and much of the practical application of atomic energy.
It is also stated here-and I have other evidence to the same effect-that in 1946 he
Inquiries of the Ministry predicted that Russia would have the atomic bomb within three years. It was a strangely accurate prediction. It also is disclosed-and this does surprise me-that this scientist, who was a refugee from Poland and was welcomed as a professor at the university of Toronto, was teaching in Warsaw and Krakow last summer.
I think all of us are fully aware that in the communist states education is something that conforms to more than academic standards. Those who are engaged as teachers in their universities are certainly under certain limitations and are subject to qualifications that do not relate to their academic standing alone. I bring this matter before the house because I think it will be a most remarkable thing if it is true that Dr. Infeld is going to apply to the university of Toronto for a sabbatical year-not just the summer-during which he will receive half pay from Canada's largest university while he is in Poland for the purpose of organizing educational activities under the guidance of a communist government. His statement is significant in view of the words in quotation marks in the article, which is in turn a quotation from the Toronto Globe and Mail, that Dr. Infeld said some time ago he would return to Poland when "a progressive government in a new Poland that needs him would attract him back to Europe."
That statement is not open to much doubt if the words are correctly attributed to Dr. Infeld. I believe that the appropriate department of the government should look into the matter immediately; and, having regard to what has already happened under not dissimi-'ir circumstances, appropriate steps should be taken to ascertain the circumstances under which Dr. Infeld plans to return to Poland armed with certain atomic knowledge that he gained during two years' association with Dr. Einstein in the United States, and from several years' activity in the fields of mathematics and physics at the university of Toronto.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, March 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. F. H. Larson for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew.
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that during the time I shall occupy the floor of the house today I shall be able to have the ear of members of the Progressive Conservative party and as

The Address-Mr. Low many as possible of the members of the Liberal party, particularly those who are attending their first or second session. I refer to the newcomers on the Liberal side of the house, because I know that many of them have not had much opportunity to study the proposals that have been put forward from time to time by the Social Credit party in the house. It is because I should like to have them know exactly what we think about some of the important matters facing the Canadian people today that I appeal to them to listen. Furthermore, I appeal both to the Progressive Conservatives and to the Liberals to take seriously what I am going to say today, and then to take part in the debate and show cause why the things I say are not correct, if they think they are not.
I challenge them to take up the arguments that I shall present and debate them. Let them come to grips with them rather than try to brush them off by simply saying that it is all idealism, foolhardiness, or something of the kind.
Before I proceed, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you to call hon. members to order, because no one can hear as long as the buzzing which is going on at the present moment continues.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Solon Earl Low: I first appeal to the Progressive Conservative party.


An hon. Member:: That is your first mistake.


Solon Earl Low: We shall see whether it is a mistake. I believe in appealing to the reason of any man, no matter what he calls himself. After all, the names of the parties are merely labels, and frankly I have failed to find very much difference between that side of the house and my colleagues to the right, except that the group on the other side of the house seems more concerned about getting elected than doing something for the people.
I want to direct these views to the Progressive Conservative party, because the matter before us today is the amendment that has been moved by that party.
I should like to go back just a few years and remind them of some of the things said by a great leader of their party. I refer to the former prime minister of this country, Mr. R. B. Bennett. I am quoting now from a radio speech he made on January 4, 1935, I presume during the course of the election campaign, or at least leading up to that campaign. This speech is recorded in a little blue booklet called "The Premier Speaks to the People." I was attracted by some things the former prime minister had to say to the country over the radio that evening. I quote:
My friends, when many of us talk about unemployment, we fail to realize what unemployment
rMr. Low.]

means. Unemployment is the visible expression of those inherent defects in the capitalist system which I have deen discussing.
I have said I would end unemployment. That is why I have said and say again I will reform the system. The cynic may deride my determined effort to do so, but those of faith and sincere purpose will support me to the end of the road.
That was spoken as though from deep conviction that there were faults and weaknesses in the capitalist system which had to be corrected if we were to get at the root of our troubles and solve the unemployment problem. From Mr. Bennett's statement it is apparent that he was not trying to treat symptoms but rather was acknowledging the fact that we were producing to a far greater extent than the Canadian people were allowed to consume, and that the result of that fault was unemployment. Mr. Bennett declared at that time that he would reform the system. I could quote other statements he made during the same series of broadcasts. One that came over the radio on January 9, 1935, contained this statement:
In my three previous talks I have declared definitely and repeatedly that there must be reform of our capitalist system and that the time for that reform has come. I have shown you that until the worst of the depression was over, reform was not possible. I have told you what we have done by other means to carry the country through the depression. I have said that further progress without reform is improbable.
There were a number of other addresses; and by the way I hold in my hand one of those addresses that has a foreword by an hon. member who now sits on the other side of the house, who at that time was a great hockey player and sportsman-the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Conacher)-supporting the then prime minister of Canada, Mr. Bennett, and declaring to the country that the Conservatives were the reform party, not the Liberals.


Mr. Conacher:: That was before I grew up, Mr. Speaker.


Solon Earl Low: What I have to say now was occasioned by something the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) said in the course of his address yesterday. Mr. Bennett was beginning to see the need of reform in 1935. He declared that reform must come to the capitalist system, that something had to be done about the growing menace of unemployment. He was not allowed to carry into effect the reforms he had in mind-and I do not wish it to be said we knew or endorsed what he had in mind. I challenge anyone in this house today to show that since 1935 those fundamental weaknesses in the capitalist system, which Mr. Bennett appeared to see, have been removed, and that the necessary reforms have been carried out. They have not. No effort

at all has been made by the government that has been in office since that time to reform the fundamental weaknesses of the capitalist system and thereby make it possible for the Canadian people to have confidence in the future.
If that is the case-and I declare that it is -then these reforms must be undertaken at the earliest possible moment, and I am directing this question to my hon. friend the leader of the Conservative party. What fundamental reform of the capitalist system is there in the proposal he made here yesterday that we allow the thing to drift along, with works programs, the building of dams, power projects and irrigation systems? That is exactly the kind of thing that has been going on ever since Canada was Canada. Mr. Bennett appeared to know that works programs of that kind were not enough. I ask the leader of the Conservative party to stand up some time during the course of this debate and tell us where in this proposal is the fundamental reform that will take care of unemployment. It just is not there, as must be perfectly obvious to every thinking person.
Well, the question now before us is the Conservative amendment; and because it is some time since it was placed before the house I am going to deal with it clause by clause and tell the house what we think about it. The first clause reads:
We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that Your Excellency's advisers have:
(1) failed to take adequate measures to preserve and expand markets for Canada's surplus products of farm, forest, sea and mine, and to deal with the problems of increasing unemployment and reduced income to Canadian farmers and other producers.
We believe the statement in that first paragraph of the amendment represents the true situation today, and because that is so we are prepared to support that clause. I believe that in speeches already made by members of this group we have indicated how we feel about markets and surpluses. The truth of that matter is that we have lost our traditional British market; we have lost other traditional markets in the sterling area, and we have failed to protect the best interests of the Canadian people by well-timed, realistic action that would recapture those markets and preserve them for the future. The Liberal government have not played the game with the Canadian people. They have not played the game with the rest of the British commonwealth. That is why we supported the idea of a commonwealth conference on trade, suggested some time ago by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). We still feel that something worth while could be done through such a conference, to recapture and hold our traditional markets, and, while doing
The Address-Mr. Low so, strengthen our commonwealth ties. For these reasons we strongly supported that suggestion.
The other evening we were all pleased when the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew), on his return from a trip around the world, 'gave his realistic and refreshing speech on trade. Though he appears to have been forced to change what he originally said when he spoke in the house on March 13, as recorded at page 688 of Hansard, even in its changed form it makes an interesting and refreshing departure from the stubborn stand which the other ministers of the crown have taken and maintained during the past two or three years. I liked what the Minister of Fisheries said. I thought it indicated he had done some real and earnest thinking. What I am saying today is not to be interpreted in any way as criticism of the minister. I want to congratulate him upon his courage and his realism in standing up in this house and declaring to the Canadian people that there is a surplus problem, and an unemployment problem associated with it.
Anyone reading his speech cannot fail to get those two implications from it. In fact they are definite statements. He knew that surpluses and unemployment go together. He said so. In his prepared speech he saw to it that there was a hyphen placed between the two words; it is a surplus-unemployment problem. The Minister of Fisheries was realistic, honest enough, and felt his duties strongly enough, that he made that declaration to the Canadian people. I imagine the minister will have a hard time living down some of the things that did occur after he had made his speech. It is not going to be my purpose, however, to argue with him about the change he made.
I should like to point out, Mr. Speaker, two or three things in the minister's speech which I believe he and his colleagues should follow up.
As recorded at page 688 of Hansard, the minister said:
Many of these difficulties may be overcome by extending the scope of barter arrangements for the particular commodities we have in surplus.
He indicated the reality of surpluses, and he indicated also a change from what we had heard a little while before the election of 1945. At that time the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann), in a speech he delivered somewhere in southern Ontario, declared that the government was against barter deals. All through the election campaign the Liberals said that they were against barter deals. When the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) returned

The Address-Mr. Low from his recent journey to Europe he was reported in the Ottawa Citizen of March 2, page 19, column 1, paragraph 4, as follows:
Canada was encouraging private businessmen to arrange barter deals where such are more desirable. But the government was not directly involved in any such trade.
Even he, after a most stubborn stand over a period of almost two years, has finally come to the conclusion that Canada will have to resort to some barter. A realistic position will have to be taken to see to it that our trade constitutes largely an exchange of goods for goods, and that we are not restricted by this stupid convertibility provision. We want to see to it that goods are sold for convertible money as often as we can, but if our trade is going to be severely restricted by a convertibility clause in a trade agreement, then I say it is not realistic under present circumstances. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, as well as the Minister of Fisheries, has come to realize that we have to resort to some sort of barter in order to bring our trade up to the level we want. One other thing: I hope that the colleagues of the Minister of Fisheries will not be too stubborn about the situation in the future, but I hope he will be stubborn in maintaining his position.
Then, the Minister of Fisheries goes on to say this:
It seems possible, therefore, to work out in Canada a combination between the very large groups of manufacturers and wholesalers and the government to provide both the management and the finance-
I realize that that was changed, and I am admitting that here, so the minister will not think I am trying to twist what he said.
-to operate bilateral deals and to overcome the lack of facilities that faces any single corporation. Such a body could barter parcels of mixed Canadian merchandise for mixed imports from the nondollar countries, and such merchandise could of course include capital equipment as well as foodstuffs or raw materials.
The next paragraph reads as follows:
This instrument might be used experimentally as an additional means of meeting the surplus-unemployment problems. If the subject is not approached in some such way, there is a danger that the various boards handling surpluses will operate independently on a give-away basis, and that the various local unemployment problems will also be tackled by relief, public works or other means that will alleviate but not remove the basic difficulty.
Let me say that this suggestion put forward by the Minister of Fisheries is,- on a national scale, what the Social Credit group in this house has been advocating on an international scale for the past two years or more. It is an instrument by which surpluses of food and other materials might be exchanged between nations, to the mutual advantage of

those nations-an international commodity clearing house. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) says that such a thing is unnecessary now; that the government can handle the problem itself. It is not handling it. The problem is still here, and the surpluses are appearing, more and more in number and quantity. Unless we do adopt some such proposal as is represented by the international commodity clearing house, I am satisfied that the government of Canada is going to continue to find itself in the same embarrassing position, with respect to surpluses and unemployment, as it is in today, only more so. The sooner we get at it the better, because the international monetary fund and the international bank do not provide the mechanism for an exchange of goods and services between nations, except on a convertibility basis. This is impossible under the present circumstances, and will be until our sister nation, the United States, begins to make dollars available in sufficient quantity to make convertibility possible.
I just want to leave that part, Mr. Speaker, with this word to the Minister of Fisheries. I compliment him on his realism. It is a good sign, and it is certainly reassuring to me to know that at least one minister on the front benches sees through the film of money to the things that are beneath it.
Before I go on to the next subject, Mr. Speaker, there is one other thing that occurs to me about this matter of surpluses. I imagine that the Minister of Agriculture will never live down what he said the other night, "A little cheese, a little butter and some honey." It will be thrown up to him for quite some time. The ministers ought to be more straightforward than they have been about this matter of surpluses. They ought to let the Canadian people know just what the situation is. Surpluses began to appear in this country two years ago. Time after time, the government was warned about them, and about the danger of accumulating surpluses of goods and services. I know this group certainly warned the government on a number of occasions. I know the member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) warned the government on a number of occasions about what was happening in his constituency-the berry problem.
I was under the impression that there were surplus beans in this country. On March 1, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. McCubbin), in answer to a question asked by the member for Middlesex East (Mr. White), told the house that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) arranged to give 38,000 bushels of beans to the refugees of the war in Palestine.

This cost the Canadian taxpayers $194,419.88. These had been bought under the Agricultural Prices Support Act. They were surplus, and there were given away. We would never have known about this magnanimous gesture on the part of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and his colleagues if a direct question had not been asked by the hon. member for Middlesex East. We suddenly found that there had been a surplus of beans in Canada, and the surplus had been cleared away by the expedient of the Secretary of State for External Affairs giving them away. I am not questioning for one moment the good purpose that was served. All I am suggesting is that surely hon. members ought to be given a chance of patting the minister on the back for his magnanimity on behalf of the Canadian people whose money bought up the surplus of beans. We should have been given an opportunity to pat the minister on the back and tell him what a good deed he had done with our money. That is all I am saying about this. But we were not informed. It is too bad that we missed such a chance in this house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not want to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but I think he will find that he was wrongly informed, because this was included in an estimate for Middle Eastern relief, and was passed in the house. Part of that relief took the form of beans.


Solon Earl Low: That is fine, Mr. Speaker. As I said, there was no questioning the validity of the purpose, but certainly a thing of that kind, even when done by ministers who are rather reticent and who do not want too much publicity, ought to be recognized. It would have been a good opportunity for us to give the people of Canada a chance to pat them on the back. Anyway the incident does show that a surplus of beans did exist.


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: It has been done with beans, but it has not been done with honey.


Solon Earl Low: During the election campaign I was out in British Columbia and I visited the town of Yarrow. At that time the Minister of Agriculture and the other ministers of the crown were telling the Canadian people that there were no surpluses; that the claims of the opposition members were all imagination; that we were trying to frighten the people. I went into the town of Yarrow and was taken by the manager of the big packing plant there to see the berry-packing industry. That day I was shown enough berries, strawberries and raspberries to make a million cases of pure strawberry and raspberry jam. It represented the whole of the 1947 crop of berries that had been standing there for two solid years, and most'of the
The Address-Mr. Low 1948 crop of berries, for which the growers had not received a cent. I should like to know just how much they have received up to this very time. They were lying there; I saw them myself in great hogsheads, left out under a boiling sun to rot. And yet the ministers claimed that there were no surpluses at that very moment. I do not need to say anything further about that.
We now come to the third section of the Conservative amendment, and we wish to say that we can agree with it. It may not go quite far enough perhaps to suit some people, but we would support it. We would also support section 4. We did demonstrate last night what we thought about the extension. We can support the extension.
We now come to section 2. Section 2 has to do with the question of a contributory old age pension program. It refers to failure on the part of the government to inaugurate a contributory old age pension plan on a national scale. I should like to take the next few minutes to place before the house our views with respect to section 2.
We have not yet been convinced that it is possible under a free democracy to devise and apply a contributory scheme of old age pensions that would be socially just, or that could replace and render unnecessary a basic noncontributory scheme. If a contributory program of old age pensions is to be socially just, I think all hon. members can see that it must cover everybody in the nation. Any scheme of the kind that I have ever heard of is in most respects like the present unemployment insurance program that we have in Canada. Many classes of people are not covered by the insurance benefits, and indeed, sir, I cannot see how they can possibly be covered under any unemployment insurance scheme that is workable. Perhaps the best example of these classes is the farmer. How can contributions be collected from the farmers of this country for an old age pension scheme? Especially, sir, how can contributions be collected from that very large number of subsistence farmers, those who are living right on the borderline, and who may not have more than $50, $60 or $75 in cash in a year? In my judgment there will always be a substantial number of subsistence and marginal-line farmers who would not be able to make a contribution to any kind of an insurance scheme.
Just because they cannot, I ask this question: Are they to be denied the old age security that we are prepared to advance to other classes, especially to those who live and work in the cities? Will it be socially just to exclude the farmer who, along with his wife and family, today has to put in very long hours of labour, away beyond the limits of health in

The Address-Mr. Low jr my instances, ani to include on the other hand the organized workers who have succeeded in reducing hours of work to eight a day for a five-day week? Farmers have no five-day week and no eight-hour day.
Then, sir, there are those who are mentally or physically incapacitated, and therefore are permanently unemployable. How can these people become eligible to share in a contributory scheme of pension? And yet we all admit that something will have to be done to provide them with a means of living.
I was interested to hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) about a week ago say that he felt the kind of old age pension scheme we now have could not possibly be considered as anything else but contributory. I agree with him. The closest calculations that I have been able to make indicate that the average Canadian, who begins at twenty years of age his active earning life in this country under present conditions, pays to the federal government more than $54,000 in taxes by the time he has reached the age of seventy, and is therefore entitled to an old age pension. Some people call that merely good citizenship. We think it is more than that. It is also a very substantial premium on a decent old age pension.


Mr. Knowles:: You could buy a good annuity with that.


Solon Earl Low: As I say, it is also a very substantial premium on a decent old age pension insurance at a reasonable age without any further contributions at all. Especially should this be so since the life expectancy of a seventy-year old Canadian is only twelve years. If the full federal contribution of $30 were paid to him for the entire twelve years of his life expectancy the pensioner would receive only $4,320, which is only eight per cent of the taxes averaged over the years from age twenty to seventy, a sort of eight per cent discount for cash, as it were.
Even if we continue to follow the present restricted system of cash pensions, I say that it is impossible for us to give social justice to our own aged citizens. Let me interject here another very important consideration in connection with this contributory pension scheme. Let us not overlook the fact that all social security benefits of any kind, I do not care what they are, have to come out of current or accumulated production of goods and services. As a general rule, whatever social security benefits are paid during the calendar or the financial year are, in the final analysis, taken out of the production for that same calendar or financial year, because, under the financial system we have persisted in following, accumulated surpluses become


Stanley Howard Knowles: If he has the money.


Solon Earl Low: Yes, if he has the money. But if he has not the money he could not contribute to them, or to a government scheme.


An hon. Member:: And if he has a chance to work.


Solon Earl Low: Yes, as the hon. member suggests, if he has a chance to work. There is one aspect of this whole matter of pensions which I think all too often escapes notice. I refer to the fact that as more and more normal peacetime conditions return to our country and the world, and as more mechanization takes place throwing people out of work, it is possible to produce a very great volume of goods and services with less manhours of work than ever before.
As a result unemployment tends to spread. Consequently it becomes the practice to hire younger labourers and to turn the older ones away because they are too old to work. It is not exceptional in this country today to see men of fifty or fifty-five who are told, "We are not hiring men of your age." Much of this would not be so if our productive effort resulted in the distribution among consumers of enough purchasing power in the form of salaries, wages, dividends, profits and compensations to enable them to buy back what has been produced.
But that does not happen; and as a consequence surpluses of most things begin to accumulate that cannot be distributed because there is no money, or far too little, in the pockets of thousands of potential Canadian consumers. As this condition begins to develop it becomes possible to provide pensions to the aged without resorting to taxation. It can be done by having the treasury cause to be created new money to represent the actual value of the surpluses, which money is turned over to the health department to spend into circulation through pensions on a non-contributory basis. I contend such a procedure would save large quantities of goods and services that otherwise would be wasted, or that might remain unproduced.
The absolute necessity of adopting a procedure of this kind, Mr. Speaker, will become much more evident as general unemployment develops into a problem-and I say it will develop into a problem; there is no question about it.
I think one of the reasons why so many members of the house who favour better old age pensions do not cast their votes in favour of improvements when they are proposed by opposition groups on various occasions is that they fear the adverse effect

The Address-Mr. Low of the tax increases which would result. I do not think there is any question about that. For this they can hardly be blamed, because taxes bear too heavily now on the average Canadian.
What they can be blamed tor is that they have not sought out ways of improving our distribution system that has become so inefficient that it allows many hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of goods and services to go to waste each year, or to remain unproduced, which amounts to the same thing, if we can produce it. By a few fundamental changes in that wasteful distribution system it could be made possible for substantial improvements in the standard of old-age pensions without the necessity of increasing the tax load of the average Canadian. The Social Crediters try to see through the film of money to the realities that are beneath it. I know, Mr. Speaker, you are looking at me as if to indicate that my time has elapsed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member the unanimous consent of the house to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Solon Earl Low: I certainly would not want to continue without the unanimous consent of the house, but I should like to take a moment to round out this argument because I think it is important to hon. members of the house. We look at Canada's almost limitless productive capacity. We see with regret apple trees pulled up by the roots, thousands of barrels of apples begging for someone to eat them; we see many hundreds of cases of healthgiving celery being dumped on the garbage heaps; all this because there are no buyers with cash to pay for these very important and worth-while products. We think of the ten per cent decline in poultry and egg production during the past few months. That decline could have been prevented if markets had been available.
Then we remember the 270,000 old age pensioners and the additional thousands of physically and mentally incapacitated Canadians who now are having to eke out a miserable existence on $40 or $50 per month, or even less in so many thousands of cases. I say to the members of this house: Could these aged citizens, could these mentally and physically incapacitated persons consume more of the products that are going to waste, either actually or because market incentives are not provided to have them produced? I think we must all agree that the answer to the question is obviously yes. I think we must all agree that the old age pensioners could and would consume these surpluses if they could get at them. It follows then that the problem is one

of bringing willing and needy consumers ana the actual or potential surplus production together. I emphasize that such a thing is physically possible.
Anyone who is at all well informed must know that whatever is physically possible and desirable can be made financially possible. We Social Crediters say that it must be made financially possible for our aged citizens to enjoy a decent standard of living because there is absolutely no reason in the world why the things to ensure that standard cannot be produced right here in our own country and made available to them. We look at the physical and natural realities. We conclude that it becomes our moral duty to see to it that our aged and incapacitated are not forced to continue to live in poverty while hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of good produce are allowed to waste.
While we keep these things in mind we Social Crediters think of the burdens carried by the taxpayers of this country. They must be protected as well. I venture the prediction that our aged Canadians and the thousands of crippled unemployables will never get social justice if it depends upon taxation to get it. I believe every thinking person realizes that that is so. While we are on this matter of taxation I should like to say just a word about the people who organize themselves to press for higher pensions. There is some responsibility upon them to find out what effect their pressure may have upon the taxpayers of Canada who are already overburdened by a heavy weight of tax exactions.


Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, it is a month ago today since this session opened and since I last spoke in this debate on February 21 many things have happened in this country, including a speech by the right hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) when he took some twenty minutes over his forty-minute time limit to place on the record a political speech delivered last May 28, none of which had anything to do with the many complex problems of today. This he did without the unanimous consent of the house and with the full support of a very noisy, howling, desk-thumping crowd of Liberal members who, it has been said, somewhat resembled a lot of trained seals. Personally I do not include some of the Liberal members in that description, but to a large extent that statement is all too true of the majority.
As has well been pointed out in a number prominent newspaper editorials across this country, the Minister of Agriculture might much better have used his time in some constructive discussion of the agricultural marketing problems facing us today. He did say that there is just a little surplus of cheese.

just a little surplus of butter and a small surplus of honey, but he neglected to mention [DOT] surpluses of potatoes, apples and eggs and many other agricultural products.
I have since heard the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) refer not only to surpluses of products but to a surplus of unemployment in- this country. More than that, the minister has been giving it serious thought and I think that is all to the good.
Speaking in Moose Jaw last April the Minister of Agriculture pointed out that the 20cent payment on wheat was only a partial payment and there was still to the credit of the farmers an amount of from 12 to 15 cents per bushel. The report of the wheat board which was recently tabled shows that as of July 31, 1949, there was a bank deficit on the four-year wheat pool period of somewhat over $5,200,000. Therefore, it should be understandable why there is so much concern among the wheat farmers as to what their future payments may be.
The minister stated that the losses in marketing wheat under the British wheat agreement will not be borne by the farmers themselves. The money will be paid into the pool by the government of Canada by the end of this crop year, and if any loss is taken it will naturally be taken by the treasury or by a settlement that we may get from the British under the "have regard" clause. Since that statement was made the losses suffered by the wheat producers in marketing are greater than ever, apart from any future adjustment that may take place.
On March 7, 1950, the price of wheat at North Portal on the United States side of the street to United States farmers equalled $2.20, while the price on the Canadian side of the street to the Canadian farmers was $1.58-1/2, a difference of 61-1/2 cents a bushel.
We had in this house on March 1, 1949, as recorded on page 1013 of Hansard, the meaningless statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) that with the initial wheat payment of $1.75 per bushel, basis Fort William, the farmer's return for 1949-50 will be higher than in any other corner of the world. Well, the Canadian farmer now knows differently. It is my firm belief that after future adjustments are made, as a result of the Anglo-Canadian wheat agreements, the Canadian wheat producers will have subsidized British and Canadian consumers to the extent of several hundred millions of dollars.
According to the Sanford Evans statistical bureau of Winnipeg, during the first full calendar year following the war, in 1946, as a result of controls and embargoes imposed by our government, Canadian farmers suffered a 55946-51
The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross loss in the marketing of livestock and coarse grains of $378 million over and above the great losses in marketing of wheat. That was just in one year.
The cost of living is still very high in Canada. The Bank of Canada index for February was 161-6. Many false accusations have been
made as to agricultural production and sales		
being responsible for this.	I should like to	
quote certain figures taken from the Winnipeg Free Press of September 15 last. They refer to Winnipeg, Manitoba, in the case of Canada, and St. Paul in the case of the United States,		
with the exception that as	to wheat	the quotation is at Minneapolis, the twin city of St.		
Paul. The figures are as	follows:	
	St. Paul	Winnipeg
Choice steers, live weight ...	. 32 c	22 cGood cows, live weight 	. 20	141Veal calves, live weight 	. 28	24Hogs, live weight 	. 21J	22Lambs, live weight 	. 23	20Wheat (Minneapolis) 	$2.22	$2.05*2.12*** Contract basis. ** Open market basis, class	II.	Turning to some of the important items that	enter into the cost of living, note the comparisons as of the same date:	followingSt. Paul	WinnipegSugar cured side bacon 	. 43 c	47 c,. 59	59Pot roast of beef 	.. 39	38T-Bone steak, commercial ...	. . 59	57Canned ground pork and beef 39	50Grade A roasting chickens ...	.. 43	49Canned shrimp, 5 oz. can 	.. 33	55Argentine corned beef, 12 oz. can 43	47Oleomargarine, per pound	.. 29	39Butter, first grade 	.. 59	61Shortening, 3 pound can 	.. 85	$1.15Bread wrapped pound loaf ..	. . 11	10JOrange juice, 48 oz. can 	29	58Soap flakes, large package ...	.. 27	35
I am sure that is a most interesting contrast between what the agricultural producer in Canada receives for his products and what is received by the agricultural producer in the United States on the one hand, and on the other hand what the farmer's wife and other housewives in Canada have to pay for the articles I have mentioned compared with what is paid in the United States. Despite that comparison, under the present price ratio in Canada an hour's average wage of industrial labour will today purchase more farm products than at any other time since 1913.
On March 1 of this year a further increase was announced in freight rates making a total increase over the past two years of 40 per cent. The increases recently allowed by the board of transport commissioners should be held back by the cabinet until such time as the discrimination and discriminatory rates now in effect against western Canada and other parts of the country are removed.

The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross
According to the federal bureau of statistics the price of farm machinery increased 12 per cent last year. The estimated requirements for new farm machinery for 1950 are over $200 million, and over 60 per cent of it will be in western Canada. Think of the added burden of freight rates here alone. Everything the farmer buys is plus freight while everything that he sells is less freight. The farm labour index since 1939 is now 3-79, and has increased over three and three-quarter times. While the farmer's products are falling in price, his costs of production are all still increasing daily. I placed a question on the order paper with respect to income tax exemptions, and I wish to deal with that to some extent. It was answered on March 1 last. The question was as follows:
Are farmers allowed Income tax exemption on new buildings, equipment or plant expansion on the same basis as is allowed to industries for 1949 or 1950?
The answer of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) was:
No. The capital cost allowances in respect of taxpayers other than farmers and fishermen were set out in the regulations published in statutory orders and regulations, part II of the Canada Gazette, of the 8th February, 1950. The capital cost allowances in respect of farmers and fishermen were set out in the regulations published in statutory orders and regulations, part II of the Canada Gazette, of the 22nd February, 1950.
As most people realize, for the past few years farmers and fishermen have been allowed capital depreciation of 20 per cent on automotive equipment such as tractors, self-propelled combines, trucks, cars and so on. One month following the calendar year of 1949, and for the purpose of assessment of 1949 income tax returns, order in council P.C. 458 was passed by the government dated the 31st day of January, 1950, and was published in part II of the Canada Gazette of the 22nd of February, 1950. This retroactive legislation by order in council allows capital depreciation to farmers and fishermen of 15 per cent on automotive equipment and 10 per cent on harness and other stable equipment. The capital cost allowance in respect of taxpayers other than farmers and fishermen is set out in order in council P.C. 6471 under date of the 22nd December, 1949, and is published in part II of the Canada Gazette of the 22nd February, 1950.
Under class 10, automotive equipment- tractors, trucks, automobiles, trailers and so on-is allowed capital depreciation of 30 per cent, and harness or stable equipment is allowed 30 per cent depreciation, but a farmer or a fisherman is only allowed 10 per cent for harness and stable equipment.
If you are in the timber and lumber business in a big enough way, or in a few

other large industries, under class 14 or 15 you may take capital depreciation of 100 per cent on certain equipment. We are not supposed to be living under a dictatorship in this country, and I protest as strongly as I can against this type of retroactive legislation by order in council. In my opinion people should know, when they are commencing the business of the year, on what basis they are to be assessed rather than have the basis of assessment established after the completion of the year's business. I think that is only a reasonable request and in the interests of good business.
I am not unmindful of the explanation made by the minister on March 13 when he pointed out that over a period of six years' capital depreciation the legislation would be slightly in favour of the farmer or fisherman. But what of the operator who desires to change his equipment in two or three years or any time less than six years? During the war years certain industries were allowed double depreciation. They were allowed to write off certain equipment in three years, and it was then a capital asset. This same principle is now to some extent in effect under the present legislation.
I protest as strongly as I can. Right now the situation is causing great confusion among farmers in western Canada, and I would imagine all over Canada, in preparing their returns. Yesterday in the vote on the amendment to the amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne every Liberal member voted confidence in the government. They voted against the third clause of the amendment which reads:
Deliberately violated a law of this parliament by illegally suppressing the report of the commissioner under the Combines Investigation Act on the flour-milling industry for ten months, including the period of the recent general election campaign, and denied to parliament information essential to the performance of its duty and the maintenance of responsible government.
I was amazed that there were not some Liberals who would rise and conscientiously express their feelings about this matter by voting in favour of the amendment which somewhat censured the government for that very serious offence. As most people know, flour milling in Canada is certainly big business. The inquiry into this matter dealt with the basic food commodity of this country, and the price of the daily bread of our people. This combine was carried on at the expense of the farmers, because it fixed prices at both the purchasing and selling ends. No offence so serious has ever been committed by any government in this country since confederation; and it is hard to imagine all their supporters in this house voting concurrence in such an undertaking.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal with a couple more local problems within the constituency I have the honour to represent, something I have never done before except on the estimates. The first has to do with the construction of a customs building at Lyleton, Manitoba. First I should like to read the question I asked and the answer given on February 9, 1949, as they appear at page 385 of Hansard:
1.	When was the contract for customs building southwest of Lyleton, Manitoba, let?
2.	Has the building been completed?
3.	Who was the contractor?
4.	Was the contract on a cost-plus basis?
5.	What was the total cost?
6.	What accounts, and for how much, are still outstanding?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	Foundation contract let October 14, 1947. Superstructure contract, January 14, 1948.
2.	Yes.
3.	Contractor-L. J. Geddes, Gainsborough, Sask. Subcontractor-F. Stratford, Lumsden, Sask.
4.	Contract for basement and sewage disposal system on straight contract basis and contract for superstructure on time and material basis, plus 10 per cent.
5.	Total cost of combination office and residence including garage, sewage disposal and landscaping, $16,605.92.
6.	One account with Brandon Sign & Stamp Works for $48 is still outstanding, pending settlement on correction to sign.
With respect to certain people who supplied material and performed work, that return was absolutely false. Last October I wrote to the minister concerning this matter, and I shall quote his reply, giving the initials rather than the names, to show that the answer given me in the house was incorrect. The minister said:
I have your letter of the 26th October, regarding outstanding accounts for work carried out and material provided during the construction of the customs excise building at Lyleton, Manitoba.
I am informed that the account of Mr. L- has been passed for payment in the full amount, and the account of M- Lumber and Manufacturing Company Limited has been placed before treasury board and payment may be expected in the near future.
I do not know whether those settlements have been made as yet, but I do know that as of February 1 of this year these people had not been paid. That is a serious matter. I am not blaming the minister personally, but I say someone is certainly at fault in that department.
The second matter with which I wish to deal is a question I discussed fully on December 1, 1945, on the estimates of the Post Office Department. That discussion may be found at pages 2816 and 2817 of Hansard for that year, if anyone cares to read what I said at that time. I asked the then postmaster general for an explanation of this situation, which I have never received. The war was over then, and I urged that a new post office should be constructed for the convenience of the people 55946-511
The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross of Killarney, a town of some 1,200 population. On October 31 last I put the following questions on the order paper, to which I received these answers:
1.	Did the federal government purchase property in Killarney, Manitoba, for a post office, if so in what year?
2.	What was the purchase price?
3.	Did the federal government or any agency thereof pay rent for said property following the purchase?
4.	If so, to whom?
5.	What amount and for what period of time?
The attached information has been received by
the Secretary of State of Canada from the Department of Public Works and post office.
Answer of Department of Public Works:
1.	(a) Yes.
(b) 1939.
2.	$2,000.
3, 4 and 5. Please refer to the Post Office Department.
Answer of Department of Post Office:
1.	To be answered by Department of Public Works.
2.	To be answered by Department of Public Works,
3 and 4. Postmaster at Killarney was paid a
rental allowance which, it is understood, he in turn paid to the Whyte estate.
5. $30 per month from date of purchase until September 1948.
Not only did this government pay much more in rent, over a period of nine years, for their own property than it had cost originally; during that time the Department of Public Works spent a good deal of money repairing it. Last fall there was a vote of some $25,000 in the supplementary estimates for a new post office at that point, and in the Killarney Guide much credit was given to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) and certain other Liberal members as a result. There was no discussion of this very serious matter of the government paying rental on their own property for some nine years. On behalf of those people I am happy to learn that there is a vote of $80,000 in the estimates this year for a new post office and federal building at Killarney. Irrespective of whom the credit should go to, I am sure those citizens will be happy when that building is completed, because it is badly needed there at the present time.
I appreciate that to some hon. members these matters may seem rather trifling; but there is a principle of great public waste and even, in my opinion, improper expenditure of public money involved. In that respect I should like to point out some of the difficulties that we face, under our present committee set-up, in following through and checking on the expenditure of public money. One year during the war the agriculture committee was studying a report of the Canadian wheat board, which included an item of $606,182 in brokerage charges paid to over ninety brokers of the Winnipeg grain exchange. It had been

The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross admitted in evidence by wheat board officials that there was some doubt as to whether some of these brokers had actually rendered any service for the money paid; in fact the chairman of the board admitted before the committee that payments had been made to some brokers when services were not rendered. It was argued by government members that it would not be in the public interest to give either the names of the brokers or the amounts of money paid them individually. The following day a motion was moved by two of my colleagues, the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) that the board produce to the committee a complete record of brokerage fees and commissions of all kinds paid since the outbreak of war; the persons or corporations to whom such payments were made; the amounts paid to each, and the service rendered by such persons or corporations. The motion was defeated.^ I asked for a recorded vote, but still the motion was defeated, despite the fact that the order of reference in paragraph 2 (5) included a complete break-down of storage, insurance, interest, brokerage and commissions, which surely was broad enough to cover that information. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and his present parliamentary assistant (Mr. McCubbin) voted with other Liberal members of that committee to defeat that motion and prevent the public from getting the information.
This year on the committee on agriculture we have forty-four Liberals and sixteen other members divided among the three opposition groups. Never, during the war years or since, have we been able to obtain from the wheat board a proper accounting of their handling of the farmers' grain. The wheat board has become a oolitical board directed by certain cabinet ministers. While I believe in the principle of wheat board marketing, I do not think they should be a political board, and I believe they should account to the producers for their actions in handling their grain.
Our public accounts committee for 1950 is composed of 50 members, of whom 35 are Liberals and 15 are from the opposition groups. Those 15 are divided between the three opposition parties. During the time I have been here, the government supporters have considered it their duty to sidetrack or smother criticism. They are there as partisans. I am told that in Great Britain the public accounts committee is composed of 15 members, with the opposition in the majority. The chairman is usually a member of the opposition. This is based on the theory that the opposition has not only the right to examine public
IMr. Ross (Souris).]
expenditures, but is in the best position to inquire into the efficient management of public funds.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Order. I just heard the hon. member say that the members of the government on certain committees had acted in a way to sidetrack criticism, or the work of that committee. I am sure that the hon. member for Souris does not want to be so harsh, so perhaps he could modify his expression.


James Arthur Ross: I bow to your ruling, sir. If anyone wishes to check my statement, the basis for it can be found in the proceedings of the agriculture committee for the year 1942. It is set out in great detail, so members can check it and judge for themselves.
As has been pointed out, there is approximately $600 million in the votes for national defence for this coming year. This is for only one department. Newspaper reports from the Liberal study clubs indicate some of their desires as to the allocation or method of expenditure. I think parliament must develop a more effective form of scrutinizing and checking upon this great expenditure of the taxpayers' money.
With respect to the arguments of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), and the Liberal propaganda sent across this country at public expense to the effect that there is no effective national alternative to the Liberal party, I would advise all people interested to read an editorial appearing in the Winnipeg Free Press on March 14, 1950. It is headed, "Only Room for One Party," and deals with the general elections held in Russia a few days ago.
There is also an interesting editorial in the Ottawa Journal of March 15, headed "Chamber of Commerce and Government Expenditures". I should like to quote one small paragraph from that lengthy editorial. It reads as follow's:
The greatest enemy of economy in any country, the greatest breeding ground of extravagance, is a parliament in which one party is completely and continuously entrenched. Power, continued power, corrupts; breeds the mood of indispensability; breeds most of all indifference to criticism-breeds in fact resentment of criticism. Mr. St. Laurent and Mr. Abbott would have a far sharper ear for the advice and demands of the chamber of commerce if their majority in parliament were nine instead of ninety.
I sincerely hope, Mr. Speaker, in the interests of the taxpayers across this country, that some more satisfactory method will be evolved in this parliament for scrutinizing these gigantic expenditures. It should be on a more efficient basis than we have hitherto been permitted to carry out that function.


Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, at this late stage in the debate, I

shall only detain the house for five minutes. I am prompted to speak at all by a report which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press on March 7. It concerns income tax prosecutions against farmers on the prairies. I should like to draw this report to the attention of parliament, and particularly to the attention of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann). It reads as follows:
The national revenue department appears to be putting on another campaign against farmers who have failed to file income tax returns ... In the first two months of this year, 1,953 prosecutions have been launched, mainly in the prairie provinces and western Ontario.
The efficiency of the Department of National Revenue has been lauded in this House of Commons on many occasions. I believe most members are prepared to admit that the department is doing a capable and efficient job. So far as the current campaign is concerned, and others like it against the farmers, I think everyone would agree that the department was only doing its job, if the campaign were being conducted on a universal basis, that is, against all Canadian farmers and in all Canadian provinces. It is only fair that farmers, like everyone else, should pay their fair share of income taxes. However, according to this report, as well as other evidence which is available, the department is not conducting this campaign universally across the country. It seems to be concentrated on the prairies, and some provinces have been overlooked.
Investigations and prosecutions against farmers have been launched in the past several months, mainly in the prairie provinces. While there may have been some, I cannot find evidence of many prosecutions having been conducted in the other provinces, particularly in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I have nothing against the farmers of Quebec. But I am using them as a basis of comparison for what is happening in Saskatchewan, my own province. I may be wrong, but this recent campaign appears to me to be discrimination against the prairie farmers. I ask the Minister of National Revenue to tell the people of Canada, as soon as he can, and particularly the farmers, why his department is so active against the farmers on the prairies, and so inactive against the farmers in Quebec and other provinces.


Mr. Sinclair:: The ones in the prairie provinces are the ones who are making the money.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: They are not the only ones. If the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sinclair) will wait a minute, I shall give him the figures. The conduct of
The Address-Mr. Thatcher the Department of National Revenue is all the more strange in view of some of the figures that have been recently released.
In my hand I have a report on taxation statistics published by the Department of National Revenue for the year 1948. On page 145 I find that in the whole province of Quebec 400 farmers paid income taxes for the year 1946. They paid a total tax, Mr. Speaker, of $14,000. Based on the number of farmers in the province, that would be about 9 cents each. Perhaps the farmers in Quebec are not doing very well. However, I know that a friend of mine in Moose Jaw, who only has a small store-


James Sinclair: A hardware store?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: -in 1946 paid more in income taxes than all the farmers in the province of Quebec. I say there is something wrong. I wonder why the department has so many inspectors in Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Manitoba, when there are so few farm taxes being paid in the other provinces.
The personal income taxes collected in Canada in 1946 amounted to $695 million, which means that the Quebec farmers contributed about -0002 per cent of that total. In the same year, the Saskatchewan farmers contributed $3,300,000. Can anyone be surprised today if Saskatchewan farmers are a little perturbed? Can anyone be surprised if they resent the fact they are virtually the only ones who are being investigated and prosecuted?
I have the 1949 report, also published by the Department of National Revenue. It contains the 1947 tax figures. According to that report, page 139, I find that out of 155,000 farmers in the province of Quebec only 540, or three-tenths of one per cent, paid income taxes. In Saskatchewan the same year 16,893 farmers paid; in Manitoba, 7,280; in Alberta, 13,985. The department only collected the magnificent total of $79,000 from the farmers in the province of Quebec. During the same year they collected in Saskatchewan $4,900,000, in Manitoba, $1,600,000, and over $4 million in Alberta. Some of my friends, like the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, say that possibly the Quebec farmers are too poor to pay income tax. That contention does not seem valid to me. I have heard a good many of my friends from Quebec tell us in the house of the wonderful farms they have in Quebec, about their magnificent dairy herds, of the cheese production and butter production which is carried on. I have travelled through Quebec. It is a very beautiful province. I have been amazed to find how attractive some of the farms are. Would any Liberal member in this house say
806	HOUSE OF
Thz Address-Mr. Adamson that in 1946 all the farmers in Quebec could or should have paid only $14,000 income tax, and that the farmers in the province of Saskatchewan should have to pay about 230 times as much?
I have no complaint against the province of Quebec. I know that so far as Quebec as a whole is concerned it pays a good deal more in income tax than does my province.
I believe that in 1947 they paid $154 million as compared with $21 million in my province.
I admit that. I repeat that I ask no special treatment for the farmers of Saskatchewan;
I think they should pay their legitimate taxes. But I do ask that they be treated by the income tax department in exactly the same way as are the farmers in other provinces. If farmers are to be investigated and prosecuted in the province of Quebec and elsewhere, let them be given similar treatment in Saskatchewan; but if the department is going to ignore farmers in Quebec and in some parts of Ontario, let it also do the same thing in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba. I believe this matter should be explained by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) very soon. If prosecutions are to be continued against farmers, it should be universal in all ten Canadian provinces, and not alone on the prairies.


Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):: I want to discuss some problems of taxation, but particularly the problems of taxation dealing with urban and suburban municipalities. I hope to make one or two suggestions to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) which would, in my opinion, greatly ease the burden of taxation and the difficulties which we see only too plainly are facing our municipalities, particularly in Ontario, at the present time.
I wish to discuss particularly the municipalities in metropolitan areas. I am not referring to what are known as dormitory suburbs, but to those completely balanced municipalities which have grown on the perimeter of our major cities. I wish also to deal with the cities themselves.
The study I have made is of course of my own constituency of York West and the city of Toronto proper. I did this because it is the area I know best. The figures which I have obtained are, I believe, applicable to most of the municipalities in Canada which are growing in both population and industrial potential.
The dormitory suburb as such is now probably an uneconomical anachronism because today the cost of providing municipal services, schools, et cetera, to a house is so great that without adequate industrial assessment few municipalities can provide it and remain solvent. It is true there are several wealthy


suburban so-called villages without industry, where restrictions have been imposed on house construction, but these contain large houses and have a low density of population, there being in some cases only three to five houses to the acre; also the ratio of school-age children per house is below average simply because the residents are somewhat older and their families have grown up. Even so, these few expressly favoured municipalities are today faced with the most serious problems concerning the raising of revenue through taxation.
York West does not contain any such municipality and is in fact, despite its geographically suburban position, an industrial area, with a manufacturing output probably as large as any other constituency in the dominion.
The figures I wish to quote are taken from the taxation statistics of the Department of National Revenue. They are from the dominion bureau of statistics, and from the municipal taxes of the Department of Municipal Affairs in Ontario. While they are accurate in themselves, they deal with a slightly different period in time, and therefore the figures cannot be precise. But I submit they do not only indicate a trend, but are sufficiently accurate to prove the point which I wish to make at the present time. The interpretation of those figures, Mr. Speaker, I submit, shows the very serious situation which is facing municipalities at the present time.
Let me go over the district of which I have made a study. I am now referring to the riding of York West including the whole of the township of York, only about half of which is in my riding. These are the population figures for 1948: York township, 90,018; Etobicoke township, 30,769; Mimico, 10,164; New Toronto, 9,156; Swansea, 7,360; Weston, 7,219; Long Branch, 6,677; making a grand total for the riding of York West, with the addition I have mentioned, of 161,447. The population growth of this constituency, as estimated by many experts, is at an annual increase of 8 per cent. Therefore at the present time it is reasonable to assume that the district of York West has an estimated population of slightly over 187,000 people. By 1953, which is four years after the last election, and if there is no election in that year, that riding will have a population of over 225,000. If there is no election until 1954, the population will be approaching 240,000. I submit that, Mr. Speaker, to show the tremendous rate of growth of the suburban municipalities and the size of the district, which, as I say, comprises the riding of York West, and the peculiar problems which these municipalities are facing because of this growth.

I have here figures showing the total tax levy in York township, and the other municipalities. These figures are prepared by the Department of Municipal Affairs in Ontario, and appear in its annual report of municipal statistics for the year 1948. I believe that, with the consent of the house, these figures might be tabled. But, because of their interest, I shall give them in detail now. This table shows the total tax levy as compared with
the school tax, and the figures are Total Tax		as follows:
Municipality	Levy	School TaxYork township 	.. $3,175,000	$1,072,000Etobicoke township ...	.. 1,243,000	411,000Mimico 	.. 337,000	120,000New Toronto 	.. 445,000	138,000Swansea 	.. 290,000	91,000Long Branch	.. 218,000	85,000Weston 	.. 303,000	110,000
This table gives for that district a total tax levy of $6,012,753 of which $2,029,816 was for school taxes. This means a very considerable tax burden on the population of my riding. It is a burden which, because of the growth of population in that area, is increasing. It is also bound to increase further because of the extra services by way of schools and other physical services provided by municipalities when new population moves in.
Let us compare these levies with the figures showing income tax raised in the same district. These figures are from the statistical report for 1949 of the income tax branch. While the amounts for the district of West York are not broken down into municipalities, nor in fact are they broken down at all, they are based on returns for the Toronto metropolitan area of which the constituency of West York forms a part, despite the fact that it is not in the city of Toronto proper.
We have on the record a total municipal tax in West York of $6,012,753 and a total school tax of $2,029,816 for the year 1948. Thus it will be seen that the school tax is 33 per cent of the total tax levy, giving a per capita tax for municipal purposes of $37.30.
It is generally assumed that the average dwelling contains five people. Using that multiplier, as the standard for the family unit, we get a municipal tax per family unit, that is per house, of $185 for 1948. As I have said, taxes increased not only in 1949, but, I understand, are likely to increase again in 1950. So with a tax levy two years ago of $185 per house, the taxpayer in my constituency owning real property is bearing an increasingly heavy burden.
To realize just how heavy that burden is, let us compare these figures with the figures for income tax as applied to the Toronto metropolitan area. In that area there were
The Address-Mr. Adamson 359,119 taxable returns yielding a total tax of $115,400,000, or an average of $321 per taxpayer. These are the figures for 1947 when taxes were considerably higher than they are now, and exemptions lower. Out of a total population of 997,600 for the whole metropolitan area, this gives an average tax per income tax payer of $321.
In that year one out of every three citizens or residents in the Toronto metropolitan area -and in all cases I am taking the metropolitan area as the standard-paid income tax. I submit that with the increased exemptions the figure for this year is more likely to be one out of every four who would be liable for the payment of income tax. Also the tax collected would be considerably less than the $321 collected in 1947.
Let us see what this means. The municipal taxation on the householder, according to the figures I have given, amounted to $185. The average income tax was $321. Assuming that every householder is an income-tax payer, these figures show a municipal taxation of 54-5 per cent of total income taxation. In other words the average taxpayer in the Toronto metropolitan area is paying 54J per cent as much in municipal taxation as he is in income taxation. That, in my opinion, is a serious situation. It is a serious situation for a number of reasons. The first reason is that municipal taxation is a fixed charge on real property. If a citizen runs into hard times and his income decreases, his income tax also decreases, but his municipal tax continues and is a first charge against what may be his main security, namely, his house and his property.
That is the situation which I submit was largely responsible for the difficulties faced by the municipalities in the years following the first war. As property values fell, as they do in times of lowered national income, it became less and less desirable to own property. Many hundreds of people who were purchasing houses either on time payments or under a mortgage, found it was not economically sound to continue either type of payment because with the destruction of the value of real property they were better off to let the mortgage holder have the house and either purchase another house at a lower value or rent. That was the situation after the last war. We must prevent it from happening again.
With the tremendous increase in the number of new family units, particularly veterans' housing, in the constituency of York West, we are faced with a school problem of tremendous importance and seriousness. A veterans' housing project was erected in the township of Etobicoke consisting of some
808	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Adamson 350 houses. The qualification necessary to obtain a house was that you should be a veteran with overseas service and a minimum of two children. Actually each house rated 2-4 children, of whom two children were of school age. That meant that the school section was faced with the immediate problem of providing accommodation for from 600 to 700 children. With the optimum of 50 pupils per room that meant an additional ten or twelve rooms. At an average cost of $35,000 per room it meant that that school section was faced with an immediate capital outlay of from one-third to half a million dollars.
This was previously a farming district and it was absolutely impossible for that school section to make that capital outlay. It imposed a tremendous burden on the whole municipality. This is merely one example of the capital expenditures being faced by municipalities at the present ime. Admittedly the government of Ontario has done and is still doing a great deal to help in the erection of schools. In fact it would be impossible for many municipalities to go ahead with their school building programs if it were not for the aid being given by the provincial government.
The figures I have given to the house indicate the tremendously heavy burden of taxation that is being borne, a burden which is likely to grow. I suggest that the ratio of municipal taxation to the federal income tax is now nearly 60 per cent in many sections. That is assuming that the householder and the income-tax payer is one and the same person, and that is true in virtually all cases.
A principle was enunciated by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) in his last budget against double taxation. He wisely-and I would like to see this extended-made a deduction of ten per cent on income from dividends paid by Canadian corporations. That was a step in the right direction and I hope in the budget to be brought down it will be extended. But here is an even more vicious example of double taxation. The home owner has a liability to pay municipal taxes which is just as much a liability as a mortgage would be. Unless he pays, he loses his property. Yet he gets no credit in his income tax return for that payment. For income tax purposes he is not allowed to deduct those essential taxes he pays to the municipalities. Nor is he allowed under the regulations as I understand them to deduct mortgage payments on his own home. My just request therefore is that municipal taxation be considered as a deductible expense for income tax purposes.


There is one other and slightly increased danger to the man or family buying their own home today under a long-term program extending over twenty, twenty-five, thirty, and in some cases forty years. The payments being made are a direct charge against the family. If they are not made, the security of the home owner is destroyed because he loses his property.
I have one further suggestion to make as to education. Today the cost of education to municipalities and taxpayers of municipalities is a matter of growing concern. As I have shown, it is fully one-third of the total tax levy at the present time. Here is a direct charge for the education of our children which must be met. If I as a taxpayer give a scholarship to educate somebody else's child I am allowed to deduct that from my income for taxation purposes. Nevertheless, because it is my moral responsibility to educate my own child, I am not allowed to make a deduction from my own income for that purpose. I suggest that the matter should not be placed on a moral basis. It should be placed on an actuarial or economic basis. It is much more important for me to see that the children who are my responsibility receive as good an education as they are capable of absorbing. Because it is my duty to do so, and because I will endeavour to do so, is beside the point. I feel that the government should base its taxation so that the money spent by an individual taxpayer for the education of his children by way of school taxes or school or university fees should be allowed as a deduction from his income for taxation purposes.
I have tried to show the house that our system of municipal taxation is a growing burden on the very people who form the backbone of the country, the great middle class, the people who own their own homes, who are doing everything to maintain the economic stability of the country, the people who should be encouraged in every conceivable way to do the very thing they are doing, namely, build a house, live in it, have a family and form a stable and secure backbone of the economy of Canada. Therefore I suggest to the Minister of Finance that in the preparation of the budget one of the reforms that should be included is that taxation levied by way of municipal taxes on the homes and properties of taxpayers should be allowed as a deduction from income for taxation purposes. Municipal taxation is a liability just as much as the interest payments on borrowed money.
As I have indicated, in my riding the total of such taxes in 1948 amounted to some $6 million. The loss of revenue would therefore not be a great one, and it would be an immedi-

ate help not only to the municipality but also to the home owner.
Today municipalities in the constituency of West York are submitting resolution after resolution to me asking that the federal government assume 50 per cent of the cost of direct relief. With these resolutions I am in complete accord, but I suggest that the two recommendations I have made would be of immediate help to municipalities and home owners. In accepting these suggestions we would not be doing anything but admitting and continuing the principle that dual taxation is an evil. We would be providing that branch of government which is closest to the people, municipal government, with a degree of security, and by the adoption of the two suggestions I have made we would provide home owners, heads of families, with a sense of growing security and a realization that to own a home, to have a family, is something which is the foundation of our economic system and is the highest type of action any citizen can take. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that these two recommendations should be given earnest attention by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) when considering any new measures of taxation to be included in the budget he will be bringing down shortly.


Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: First, may I explain my reason for participating in this debate. During the last session, I spoke briefly during our discussion of amendments to the National Housing Act and confined my remarks at that time to the housing situation. I therefore wish to take advantage of this debate to mention briefly other matters of concern to our people.
May I join the speakers preceding me and congratulate the mover and seconder, Mr. Larson and Mr. Dumas, for the very capable manner in which they discharged their duties, and further may I add a word of congratulation, late perhaps but none the less sincere, to our new Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who, I am sure, will give his new department the splendid leadership it deserves.
During the long history of parliament it has been the privilege of hon. members taking part in this debate to eulogize their own constituencies. It is not my intention to follow that practice; in fact I do not think I will mention my riding at all. Mind you, I could use the entire forty minutes allotted to me in telling you of this grand district of Nipissing which I have the pleasure to represent, strategically located as it is at the gateway to the unlimited wealth of our great north land. I could tell you of the great resources of this district; I could give you some of the highlights of the history of some of the centres of population in my riding. I could tell 55946-52
The Address-Mr. Garland you stories of the picturesque and beautiful town of Mattawa, nestled in the valley at the junction of the Mattawa and Ottawa rivers. Or I could tell you the history of Sturgeon Falls and how it became a boom town with the building of the Abitibi mill there; of its history during the long, dark years of depression, and its resurgence as one of the best towns in northern Ontario. I could tell you of North Bay, so properly called the gateway to the north and the capital of northern Ontario. I could tell you that North Bay is a great transportation city, because all the commerce of the north must pass our way.
I could tell you of the railways fanning out in all directions, carrying manufactured goods from the south to house, clothe and feed the people of northern Ontario and northwestern Quebec, and bringing from our great north country the materials wrought from our rich and bountiful land, products of the forests and the mine, including gold, silver, cobalt and nickel. Yes; 95 per cent of the world's supply of nickel is produced only some eighty miles west of our city. Busses, too, fan out in all directions from our city, over a splendid system of highways, carrying people to and from the industrial centres to the south and to the mining and lumber districts of the north. We have, also, one of the finest airports in the country.
Then, if I chose, I could tell you of the hundreds of lakes and streams so bountifully stocked with every fish imaginable that have attracted and are continuing to attract thousands of tourists to our district. I could tell you of the miles of beautiful sand beaches on lake Nipissing, that same sandy shore where the famous explorer Champlain paused with his friend, Brule, in the long twilight of a summer evening on that 25th day of July, 1615, and admired the beauty of this great inland lake. I could tell you, if I were not so hesitant to boast of our district, that here in lake Nipissing is the greatest pickerel fishing bank on the North American continent; I could also invite you to come to Nipissing and paddle your canoe over the beautiful waters of Trout lake and travel, if you will, the exact course taken by Champlain on that day so long ago on what is now known to thousands as the famous Champlain trail. Then I could tell you of the beautiful Temagami area in the north end of my riding, rapidly developing into one of Canada's most popular summer playgrounds. I could tell you of the wonderful possibilities of the beautiful French river area, as yet practically virgin territory.
Yes, if I were not so hesitant to extol the virtues of my riding, I could tell you that this great paradise attracts thousands of tourists annually, who swell our population and spend

The Address-Mr. Garland approximately $5 million each year in our district. Then, if I chose, I could tell you of our people; I could tell you that Nipissing is the home of the world-famous Dionne quintuplets, those five charming young ladies who only a few years ago rocketed our little village of Corbeil into international headlines; I could tell you of our people, English-speaking, French-speaking, people of Italian origin, and so on, who, regardless of their race or background, are real Canadians with a tremendous amount of faith in the future of our great country.
All this I could tell you and more if, as I said before, I were not so hesitant to boost my riding. I would extend a welcome to industry planning new developments to seriously consider the district of Nipissing before making any final decision as to the location of new plants, because Nipissing is the geographical centre of Ontario, linking northern and southern Ontario. To our west lie the sprawling grain empire of the prairies and the rapidly-developing oil fields of western Canada; and to our east the great port cities of the Atlantic. In these days when so much emphasis is being placed upon decentralization, I would urge that consideration be given to our district. Here employer and employee can work and live together, removed from the countless pitfalls of congested-area living, yet only a few hours away from the great markets provided by Canada's large cities.
And now, sir, I turn to other matters. I was indeed pleased to see our government, during the last session, acknowledge their responsibility regarding assistance to municipalities where there is an excess of federal buildings. While the government is to be commended, I do not believe that we have gone far enough, because regardless of the concentration of these federal buildings the responsibility is there, and I hope that the legislation proposed last year and again referred to in the speech from the throne this session is only the thin edge of the wedge, and that our government will give further consideration to this assistance to our hard-pressed municipalities.
Now, sir, a word about social security measures in general and old age security in particular. I am indeed pleased, as I feel sure all hon. members are, to see a committee being set up to study thoroughly all phases of an adequate old age security measure. We have heard considerable talk in this country about the abolition of the means test, and I regret to see some of our people using this issue to stir up worry and discontent, yes, even hardship, among our older people, knowing full well that they do not have the

authority or the responsibility of doing anything about it. Unfortunately there are two groups of people in this country-one who would recommend giving everything to the people with no regard to the cost, and the other who shudder when the words "social security" are mentioned. They hide behind the cloak of free enterprise and claim that any step forward in the field of social security is a sign of weakness and can only result in the softening and breaking down of the initiative of our people. Thank goodness there is still a third group, to which I subscribe, who do not believe that everyone should be dependent upon the state, nor on the other hand that business exists only for the sake of business and profits. We believe that industry can and should show a profit and yet, at the same time, can and should share some of these profits with labour. These same beliefs, it would seem, carry through when thinking in terms of old age security. One group would recommend pensions for everyone without restrictions; another group believe that the government has gone too far with its present legislation, and in our own group we believe that the whole matter should be gone into very thoroughly and similar types of legislation in other countries studied, and in gathering these facts making sure that any new plans being embarked upon can be carried out successfully and within the means of Canada's national purse. Let us all join together in working out a plan whereby Canada's senior citizens may be freed forever from anxiety and fear; that will enable them to relax and enjoy, in the twilight years of their life, the peace and security they so richly deserve.
At this time, I should like to refer briefly to a matter that has not been covered, to my knowledge, by other hon. members, and that is Canada's tourist industry. During 1949, Canada's tourist industry established new records, when over-all revenues from travellers from other countries reached $288 million according to the bureau of statistics. Today, the tourist business provides more United States dollars to Canadian people than any other export industry, with the sole exception of newsprint. It is, therefore, no mean factor in our national economy. This industry depletes no raw materials in this country, because our forests and streams, our fish and game, can be preserved by intelligent conservation methods for generations to come. The tourist business, in the main, consists of accommodation and personal services for several million travellers each year; travellers who return to their own countries as the most effective ambassadors of good will it is possible to obtain.
Both 1948 and 1949 have been record tourist years. There are signs, however, that

the days of the easy tourist dollars are disappearing. Competition in the travel business is friendly, but is none the less intense. In the year 1948, for instance, tourist promotion agencies in the state of California spent over $900,000 on advertising and publicity, more than the entire advertising appropriation of the Canadian government travel bureau. In that same year, other states of the union spent over $5 million on travel promotion on their own behalf. In addition to this United States competition, Canada must face competition provided by some 46 foreign governments which maintain travel promotion offices in the United States.
The advertising budget allotted to the Canadian government travel bureau to further this important industry, our second ranking source of United States dollars, was $820,000 for the 1948-49 fiscal year. It is $895,000 for the 1949-50 fiscal year, or less than one-third of one per cent of the annual revenues. All Canadian travel promotion organizations, including the travel bureau, the provincial tourist bureaux, railways, steamship lines, and other transportation interests last year spent $2,500,000 on advertising in the United States, or less than one per cent of the 288 million United States dollars the tourist industry brought into this country. Considering the size of the job, and the amount of money available, the Canadian government travel bureau's advertising campaign has had results which in many respects have been phenomenal. In 1949 the bureau handled 321,751 individual inquiries. The tourist industry of this country broke all its previous records in both 1948 and 1949, and it now looms large in the Canadian economy.
This travel movement across the United States border is far from being one way, however. The success of our competitors' own advertising is demonstrated by the alltime high of travel spending by Canadians in other countries in 1949. They spent $164 million on pleasure travel in the United States during the year, according to the bureau of statistics, and $27 million in other countries. This total of $191 million was a new record. Travel business is not restricted in importance to those directly engaged in serving the tourist. It is a business which puts new money into the pockets of every Canadian, whether he be a farmer, a railroader, in fact, everyone, because everyone depends upon the general prosperity of our country for their livelihood. It puts money into the treasury of our federal government, and every provincial government in this country. It seems fair to suggest that this important industry's welfare is the concern of every Canadian.
The Address-Mr. Garland
We have a wonderful country to offer on the travel markets of the world. It has a land area of three and a half million square miles, with more than half of the world's fresh water; a wealth of scenic beauty; rich reserves of fish and game, and an incredibly varied climate. Perhaps because of this, the travel business is one which does a very respectable job of furthering its own growth; however, that does not mean it merits the neglect which it sometimes encounters in the minds of those who take it for granted. In such a competitive business, this is an unwise, even a dangerous attitude. A business that brings more than a quarter billion of new money into this country in a single year calls for the same kind of realistic attention we give our other export activities.
We must remember also that our problem with respect to the United States, which is the greatest travel market in the world, is a peculiar one. The average Canadian knows a great deal about events in the United States; he cannot help it when he reads his newspapers, his magazines or listens to his radio. Unfortunately, he does not always realize how little the average citizen of the United States knows of affairs in Canada; yes, indeed, how little his neighbours know of the simple geography of this country. Therefore, the travel business does both a public relations job and an information job for Canada.
Our game and fish, our forests, all help tell the Canadian story in the simplest and most fundamental manner. The courtesy of our people to the yearly influx of vacationseeking visitors is becoming a byword across the border. It has done much to sell Cana-dianism in the United States, but it is a story that needs telling in many different forms, and none of them deserve neglect or indifference. We shall never fully realize the value of the tourist industry to this country until the day when it might be lost. That day will never come if due attention is paid to this basic enterprise. So I would urge the government to pay special attention to the development of this very important industry. True, the government is assisting in various ways. One could not cite a better example than the completion of the trans-Canada highway. Surely nothing is more important to our visitors than good roads. But, I repeat, the Canadian story needs telling in many ways. This government can do this by extending the budget of our Canadian travel bureau; and in so doing broaden its facilities. It is my prediction and my sincere hope that, in the not too distant future, the Canadian travel hureau will have an annual budget of $5

The Address-Mr. Knowles million, and our tourist industry will be pulling a billion United States dollars into Canada every year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Stanley Howard Knowles: 
Mr. Gillis:: Just an alibi they are using.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wish to say again what I have said before, that I give credit to the federal government for the soundness of the proposal they made in 1945. I have said it a good many times, and I hope my approval of it is not turning the government away from it. The people of Canada still remember it, and agree with it. Indeed there is an essential soundness in the original proposal. It needs to be amended in really only one important particular-as to the amount. That $30 figure of 1945, when taking into con-
The Address-Mr. Knowles sideration the rise in the cost of living index from 1945 to 1950, should now be something over $40.
So all the government has to do to have a sound proposal to put before the country today is to take the proposals of 1945, amend the $30 figure to $40 and give to the people of Canada an old age pension of at least $40 a month payable to all at age seventy, without a means test. Then the other proposal is still there for pensions for those from sixty-five to sixty-nine as well.
For a few years we heard a good deal about the alleged refusal of some of the provinces to enter into a tax agreement. We were told many times that that was the reason those proposals could not be put into effect. We do not hear so much about that today. I wonder if it is because of the pleasant atmosphere of the conference which took place in this chamber in January of this year. Prior to that the government could always talk about the fact that two provinces had refused to agree, and that always seemed to be a sufficient alibi-at least to the government. Today, however, it appears that the provinces are a little more friendly to the idea of finding ways and means of adjusting our dominion-provincial difficulties. We do not hear so much about that phase of the matter now. We hear, rather, the sort of remark that we heard from the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) and again this afternoon from the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Garland) that you have to consider the cost involved, and that you have to consider whether or not the government ever offered old age pensions without a means test, unless there was attached to it a contribution, which I have dealt with on a previous occasion.
It was very clear in the 1945 proposals that any financing that would have to be done was to be done by a modification of the income tax. There was to be no constitutional change -and I am sure when the government said in 1945 that there was to be no constitutional change it had in mind the fact that back in 1925 the Department of Justice had given the federal government a ruling, and that that ruling was that you could not impose a special tax for social security purposes without having an amendment to the constitution.
So the government in 1945 no doubt had that ruling in mind when it said, "we have worked out a scheme which can be implemented without any constitutional change." They also said in 1945, and repeated it in 1946 and 1947 and 1948, that those proposals were worked out on the basis of considerable study, and that it was a plan that would hold together and work.
814	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Knowles
That proposal, in effect, is what is before us in the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), because in his subamendment he asks us to change the wording of the main amendment before us so that we will be voting for a national system of old age pensions, without a means test.
The amendment of the hon. member also draws particular attention to the use of the word "contributory". I think it is valuable that there has been a great deal of discussion in the house and in the press and throughout the country about that word. I think a great deal more discussion is necessary, and a great deal more thinking before some hon. members get it all sorted out. In my view it is a word that is being used sloppily, and for various motives.
I wish to support the views expressed this afternoon by the hon. member for Peace River when he said that the only way in which we can pay for social security at any time is out of current production. He made that very clear this afternoon-and it is exactly what the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) has said a number of times. By the way, I commend the remarks of the hon. member for Peace River to his colleague the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell), because he did not seem to like what was said the other evening by the hon. member for Vancouver East. However, that is only by the way.
That point must be driven home, and we must think about it. It is fundamental to the whole concept of social security; because when today old age pensioners are living on their old age pensions, or when people are living on pensions from private industry, or from civil service pensions, or whatever it may be, they are not living on dollars and cents; they are not living on pieces of paper; they are living on a portion of the production of today's economy. What we are doing is to permit a portion of current production to be used for a socially desirable objective-to provide some sort of retirement for some of our older people.
The tragedy is that we have not reached the point where we can decide as a nation that we are going to set apart a sufficient portion of the production we are now producing to provide adequate retirement for all our old people. Similarly in the year 1990 or 2000 A.D., as the hon. member for Peace River said this afternoon, people who are now 20 or 30 will be retiring. They will not live on credits in some insurance office, or at the annuities branch, or in some new office where records are kept. They will not live on dollars and
fMr. Knowles.]

cents, on cheques, or paper; they will live on goods and services out of the production that is current in the year 1990 or in the year 2000.
The reason it is important for us to realize all this is so that we will not use this word "contributory" in a sloppy fashion. Too many members in the house seem to think there is some magic in that word. They seem to have in mind that if individuals, on a contract basis, put aside so many dollars a month or so many dollars a year, across the years, in some magic way they will be able to retire without a means test when their working years are done.
Well, as the hon. member for Peace River pointed out, that depends upon the economy of that day, the value of the dollar in that day and, in the final analysis, upon what society in that day is producing. That means this, that the only use of the word contributory that is realistic is as it is used in current terms. We are all contributing today to old age security, such as it is, which some of our old people enjoy. We contribute to it out of the wealth being produced today. And when some of us are old and retired, if we are on an old age pension at that time, we will be enjoying a portion of what is produced at that time and contributed to our retirement, in the goods and services we will consume, by the people who are working in that day.
The quid pro quo of this is that people who are working today should in any decent and sensible society contribute toward the security of people who need it today and, in turn, we will get the same consideration from the people who are working when our day comes to retire, and so on. I plead with hon. members to think of this whole business of social security in those terms rather than in the private life insurance company terms which envisage people simply paying contributions into a fund and somehow magically being able to retire at a later year.
As a matter of fact I hold in my hand the current tables of the annuities branch which are contained in sessional paper 64-A tabled on Wednesday, March 8, of this year. It occurred to me that it might be interesting to look into this to see what it would cost on an annuity basis for a person 25 years of age to try to provide for retirement 40 years from now on a direct contributory basis. Surely that is a long enough period in the twentieth century to ask people to work.
If a young man 25 years of age wishes to try to provide an annuity of $100 per month at 65, which I hope would not be unreasonable for a man and wife 40 years from now, the rate for males would be $15.24 per month, which would have to be paid every month

for 40 years. If a woman aged 25 years was seeking to provide $100 per month at age 65 she would have to pay $17.64 per month for 40 years. If you think in terms of a man and wife both aged 25 years who are seeking to buy an annuity of $50 each so that they would have $100 as long as they were both living and $50 when there was only one survivor, the average of the figures I have given would amount to $16.44 per month for the 40 years.
Even if you put it on a split basis and divide the cost among employer, employee and the government on a 40-40-20 basis- I use that figure not to propose it but simply because it is the unemployment insurance basis-you would be asking people to contribute $6 or $7 per month for 40 years, and employers to do the same. That amount would be the required contribution to a contributory scheme on a direct individual basis. In terms of the wage rates of our people, in terms of the income of farmers across the years, it would be impossible to impose such a payment on all our people. Those who are saying that we cannot afford to remove the means test without putting it on a contributory basis might as well realize that they are saying to the people of this country that we cannot get rid of the means test. If you are putting it on a direct contributory basis, the cost to the individual is clearly prohibitive.
Someone may ask, and it is a fair question: If you cannot do it that way, how are you going to do it? The fact is that if you are going to have a proper retirement allowance for old people, bearing in mind that the people cannot pay for it themselves out of the wages they are now getting, what you absolutely have to have is a certain amount of redistribution of wealth in favour of social security. The justification for a redistribution of wealth in favour of social security is that people who are earning wages of $30 or $40 a week cannot afford to buy their own old age security and yet they are producing wealth far in excess of what they are getting. I assert that those who are trying to push forward an individual direct contributory idea are simply trying to stem the tide of the redistribution of wealth in social terms such as I am suggesting to the house right now.
I urge strongly that members face up to these facts and realize that the only possible way to get proper social security is to build it into the income tax structure whereby people will pay for the total cost of government, including social security, on the basis of ability to pay and then, as a matter of
The Address-Mr. Knowles right, draw their pensions when retirement is reached.
That is our position. It is because of that philosophy, it is because of that analysis, which I submit is fundamentally sound, that I take up the time of the house at this stage of the debate to urge the government to consider the fact that they should be bringing in a proposal to amend the Old Age Pensions Act in such a way as to eliminate the means test and put it on a universal basis. I ask the government to go back and read their own material submitted to the dominion-provincial conference. I ask them to read their own assertions that amendments to the constitution were not necessary, that a plan had been worked out on the basis of study, a plan that would work, and that it would be brought into effect with the least possible delay.
This afternoon the hon. member for Nip-issing (Mr. Garland) made a most interesting speech and I think we all enjoyed the way in which he was so hesitant about telling us of the beauties of his constituency. Apart from that he went on to say that those who were advocating the removal of the means test were bringing hardship and misery to our older people. May I tell him that the hardship and misery that our older people are suffering is more real than that; it is the reality of the means test that is really hurting them. They are suffering, too, from the kind of thing that is being said in newspapers and in this house which leads them to believe that they are not going to be relieved of the means test unless the plan is put on a contributory basis. I do not know whether many people have seen annuity tables such as those I hold in my hand, but even if they have never seen such figures they realize that with the incomes they get they simply cannot afford to make the contributions necessary to provide for their old age security.
In the light of what I have said, it is obvious that we shall support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peace River. I think all hon. members in the house should support it, and I think that Liberals in particular should support it because it gives them a chance to vote for the old age pension proposal of 1945 which they reiterated with such fanfare in their national convention of 1948.
I said earlier that I rose for at least one other reason, and I turn now to deal with it. I hold in my hand a couple of press reports, both written by the same writer but appearing in different papers. They both refer to a speech I made in this house during this same debate, back on March 6. One report appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press of Thursday, March 9, 1950, under the byline of Chester Bloom, and the other appeared in the
816	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Knowles Free Press Weekly Prairie Farmer of March 15, 1950, also written by Chester Bloom. The article in the Winnipeg Free Press reads: Pension Issue Bares Rift in C.C.F. Party By Chester Bloom
Ottawa, March 9 (Special)-Mr. M. J. Coldwell, C.C.F leader, Wednesday attempted to smooth over indications of splintering in the C.C.F. group in the House of Commons.
The general C.C.F. policy has been to go along with the Liberal government against the Progressive Conservatives on questions involving expansion of social security.	_
Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) Monday seemed' to strive to create a direct breach with the St. Laurent cabinet. Again and again, he berated the Prime Minister for allegedly breaking the "promise" of August, 1945, of old age pensions for those 70 years and over without means test. He included other ministers in the attack.
The article goes on to suggest that there is a rift or division between my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), and me over this issue. The irony of this story is that when you compare the quotations from my speech and from what my leader said there is no difference whatsoever. Mr. Bloom goes on to state:
Mr. Coldwell said Wednesday his party's platform backed the contributory plan but only on an overall basis-that is, including health, sickness benefits, hospitalization, unemployment insurance and old age pensions without a means test.
The party did not want old age pensions put on a contributory basis separately from the other social security planks.
That is exactly the position that I took; indeed it is exactly the position that Chester Bloom says I took. He said that I gave the impression we are pulling away from supporting the Liberal party because while we support a contributory over-all social security plan we are not prepared to accept a contributory one-point social security plan. That is exactly my position, the position of my leader, the position of this group and of this party. I suggest that sort of journalism is not very responsible, especially when the story fails to bear out the heading and the opening paragraph.
In the same article Mr. Bloom says:
Mr. Knowles carefully avoided mentioning that this so-called "promise" actually was a proposal conditional on all provinces accepting the complex dominion-provincial agreements of 1945.
May I ask Mr. Bloom to look at pages 472, 473 and 474 of Hansard for March 6, and he will find that on at least three occasions I referred to the fact that the original proposals had been based on the tax agreements, but I pointed out-and this was my complaint -that the government was no longer using the refusal of certain provinces to agree to these taxation arrangements as its excuse for not going ahead, but rather it was now saying


that it had never proposed old age pensions without a means test except on a contributory basis.
Not content with that irresponsible and completely erroneous story about a rift in this party over the question of social security, which it is really ludicrous to even suggest, Mr. Bloom rewrote his article in a longer story which appeared in the Free Press Weekly Prairie Farmer of March 15, 1950, and he really went overboard this time. The heading is:
They say at Ottawa.
The subheading is:
Mr. Knowles re-words the communist doctrine.
Things have got to a pretty bad state in this country when you have to start throwing the word "communist" at a person because he advocates the removal of the means test from old age pensions. That is just how bad it is. I am amazed at even the Free Press doing that. The last time they used the word "communist" in connection with my" name they apologized within two days. Mr. Bloom not only repeats part of what he said in the article in the daily Free Press but also goes on to say:
Actually, the most important utterance of Mr. Knowles can be found on page 475 Hansard, March 6 last. How close C.C.F. speakers approach communist doctrine in the heat of debate was illustrated by that remark. Mr. Knowles said he believed (his own opinion) -
It is substantiated by the green books I have on my desk.
-that the federal government in the dominion-provincial agreement proposals of 1945 had in mind adjustments or increases in the income tax to pay the total cost of old age pensions without a means test out of the federal treasury. Then he added-
This next paragraph is in black face type, in quotation marks, and is directly from me.
"That would be a proper scheme because it would envision people paying according to their ability to pay and drawing the old age pensions at the proper age as a matter of right."
That is the end of Mr. Bloom's quotation from me, and the next paragraph reads:
That phrase, obviously, is merely a rewording of the fundamental Marxian communist doctrine: "From him according to his ability and to him according to his need." Realistically, it means taking the property and possessions of people who have them andi giving them to people who do not have them.
I should like Chester Bloom and others to note the paragraph which he quoted from what I said, and by which I stand as a statement of something fundamentally sound. Then I should like him to compare it with this statement which I am now going to read. It is as follows:
What we mean by a contributory old age pension scheme is a scheme whereby all Canadians will contribute each year to a fund for old age pensions

and where old age pensions will be paid out as a matter of right to those who will have attained the pensionable age.
That is exactly the same doctrine, that all of us should pay into a fund and that we should then draw our pensions as a matter of right at the pensionable age. This speaker went on to spell it out even more clearly. He said:
Some of us won't have long to go-
This man is in his late sixties.
-and won't have many payments to make before we get ours, but it is a system that will go on continuously and will mean no unfairness to those who will start at the age of twenty or twenty-one and who will continue to pay into the fund until they reach pensionable age. It will be a pension of an equal amount for everyone at pensionable age to which everyone of taxable age will make a direct contribution.
There it is, another way of stating exactly what I said, that what is meant by a proper old age pension scheme is one into which we all pay, all of us who are taxable, all of us who can afford it whether we are sixty-eight or twenty-one, and in return for having played our part in contributing to the providing cf social security in the days when we were working, when we reach pensionable age we draw a pension as of right at a flat amount, the same amount for everybody, without a means test.
I ask Chester Bloom this question. If he insists on saying to the people of western Canada that my statement was a rewording of communist doctrine will he not say the same for the statement I have just quoted, which is that of the present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) speaking in Vancouver on April 14, 1949? The statement he made was not something the Liberal party wanted to forget because they gave it permanent form in the fall issue of their quarterly publication, The Canadian Liberal. The fact is that both statements are fundamentally sound.
I submit again that this sort of journalism is the kind that brings freedom into danger, and that even the Free Press should not indulge in that sort of thing. When these articles first appeared I thought of rising in the house on a question of privilege, but I felt that perhaps it deserved even more than that. To return to what I said earlier, I want to add that what bothers me about articles of this kind is not only the irresponsible journalism involved therein, and the misstatements to which I have drawn attention, but also that what is going on here is an attempt in many papers-I saw it in the Globe and Mail a few days ago-to tell the people of Canada that they cannot have the removal of the means test until our whole pension plan is put on a direct contributory
The Address-Mr. Knowles contract basis. If we have to wait for that we will never get it, at least not for all our people. If we have to wait' for that you have to think in terms of the figures I gave from the annuity tables. If you are thinking of that you are asking for the kind of system they have in the United States where, despite some of its good features, it is providing, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) said the other day, only ten per cent of their retired people with a pension as of right, leaving many thousands still on a means test basis.
In other words, it all adds up to the clear position that if there is to be one next step, as is the case in practical politics, that next step should be the removal of the means test from the present old age pension. Let us have along with it, if we possibly can, the lowering of the age, but certainly let us have a revision of that $30 figure of 1945 into a figure of at least $40 for 1950. I call upon the government of the day to implement the sound proposal they made at that time.


Some hon. Members:: Time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I know that hon. members are calling "time", and I am going to sit down shortly. Nevertheless I suggest to hon. members that they think very clearly before they vote on the amendment to the amendment of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) because what they are being asked to vote on is their own government's proposal of 1945, reiterated in their convention of 1948, promised to the people of their constituencies in 1949, and promised by many of them in the language the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Campney) used when he said that he would fight for it here in this house. I suggest the least they can do is vote for it when they get the chance to do so.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, this particular portion of the debate has been headed, as hon. members know, by the amendment of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) which in the first place strikes out the word "contributory" from the Conservative amendment, indicating that Social Crediters are opposed to the contributory idea in respect of old age pensions and social security, and especially old age pensions which are under discussion at the present time. The last portion of our amendment reads:
The government has . . . failed to adopt measures adequate to establish in our country a balanced economy wherein Canadian consumers are constantly supplied with effective purchasing power sufficient to enable them to buy Canada's total production, if they so desire.
I am inclined to think this particular portion of the amendment sets us at variance

The Address-Mr. Blackmore would say there were surplus goods, $15 billion worth of them, which would serve as a backing for the creation of debt-free money. I think that makes quite clear what is meant by Social Crediters, when they speak of the creation of money out of production. They do not mean stealing it out of the pockets of the people who are toiling to produce, because that only decreases the purchasing power in the country, and makes the whole economy worse off.
The member for Peace River (Mr. Low) mentioned this afternoon money for old age pensions, and I shall try to interpret what he said. The member is sitting right here, so he can testify as to whether or not this is what he meant. When he spoke of getting money by deduction out of production, he meant that the money saved up for old age pensions say over 20 years, starting say in 1950, will be spent in say 1970, thereby using part of the production of 1970. May I ask the member for Peace River, in your presence, Mr. Speaker, if that is so.


Solon Earl Low: That is true.


John Horne Blackmore: That is another meaning entirely than the one which the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) took from the hon. member's remark.
Now I desire tonight, in the time at my disposal, to discuss the whole question of sound money. We have to face this thing first or last, Mr. Speaker, and we had better face it first. It should be faced right now. If there is not any truth in the social credit contention, then we invite the 262 members of this house to prove it. The case is clear, and hon. members are welcome to say anything they desire. If we cannot answer every one of their questions, then it will be time for them to wonder whether our ideas about sound money are correct. In the meantime, we are going to talk about sound money.


Mr. Poulioi:: Try to prove that your money is sound first, and then we shall listen to you attentively.


John Horne Blackmore: Good, I think we shall prove it to you. In fact, I think I have proved it already by the illustration of the $45 billion and the $60 billion in the United States, and the illustration about the $450 million in greenbacks in Lincoln's time. I believe all reasonable men will admit that is proof.
May I begin by quoting from the words of our Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), as they appear at page 58 of Hansard:
And that is not just a problem of convertibility.
He is talking about taking sterling in return for our goods.
The dollars or pounds are merely symbols;

Admirably said; the Prime Minister is beginning to grow in wisdom.
. . . and unless there are the commodities available that those dollars or pounds would call for, they are of no immediate use.
Since the Prime Minister is in the house, I wonder if it would be fair to ask him if the converse of his statement would not be true also? If the symbols are no good without goods, then if the goods are there can we not create the symbols?


Jean-François Pouliot: Do not be too scientific, or we will understand nothing.


John Horne Blackmore: If I am not completely
scientific, then you will say I do not know what I am talking about. I shall stay with science.


Jean-François Pouliot: I admire the hon. gentleman, and he knows it.


John Horne Blackmore: I appreciate that greatly, but I shall stay with science; that is what I am going to do tonight.


Jean-François Pouliot: Not too much of it.


John Horne Blackmore: Not too much, but not too little of it, either.
After quoting from the Prime Minister, may I draw this conclusion? If money is only a symbol of goods, and we now have more goods in Canada than we have symbols to distribute, why can we not create the symbols without borrowing them from the bank or anybody else? The bank creates them, and then we borrow them and put ourselves in debt by paying interest to the bank. Because we do not feel free to borrow enough, we cannot pay our old age pensioners what they ought to have.
Some discussion is going on in the country now about money. We notice this year that the Financial Post has stepped into the picture, trying to discredit what the Social Crediters are going to say, before they had a chance to speak. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) dealt with that in his first speech.
Now we have the Toronto Star Weekly, an admirable paper in many respects, probably quite honest-I am assuming it is quite honest-in its February 25 issue carrying an article by Robert Nielsen from Ottawa, so it is supposed to be authentic. This article is called "It's only money." May I quote several passages from Mr. Nielsen's article? Near the beginning he says, in speaking of the history of Canadian money:
In. the intervening four centuries, there have been more kinds of funny money than a Social Crediter could think up in an opium dream! Leather bills, playing card notes, silver dollars with holes in them, coins in halves and quarters.

I suppose the thing that made the article acceptable and salable was the silly little sneer about funny money and Social Credit-ers. I hope that was not the reason why the Toronto Star Weekly put the article in; there is no group of people in the world today that appreciates, advocates and understands sound money more than Social Crediters do. The money they propose is as far from funny money as it can possibly be. Further on he uses these words:
According to James E. Coyne, Donald Gordon's successor as deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, our money today has value because its quantity is limited. It's pretty obvious, says Mr. Coyne, that if the amount of money in circulation were infinitely increased, its value would decline to very near that of the paper it's printed on. He, therefore, defines it as one of the key functions of the bank to see that money remains reasonably scarce.
As if any poor lunatic had ever advocated "infinitely" increasing it. I suppose the article was rendered salable once more because of this reference to "infinitely" increasing it, as though anyone had ever advocated anything like that in Canada.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask a question?


John Horne Blackmore: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: What would be the symbol of the infinite quotient for his sound money?


John Horne Blackmore: I think probably you and I had better call up Mr. Coyne tomorrow and ask him.
We will get it together and we will both be sure that we are right. Further on the article says:
The resourceful Hudson's Bay Company solved the exchange problem by issuing its own copper tokens, based on a beaver skin as the standard of value. The largest coin represented one beaver pelt, a second one-half a beaver pelt and the smallest one-quarter of a beaver pelt. If Ojibway Indian Joe Hoot Owl brought in a beaver but wanted only a clay pipe from the company store, the company could give him three quarter-tokens change, good another day.
There is Canadian money. In this case the symbols were created beyond question. They did not have to borrow them from any bank. The article goes on:	*
But the governors of New France had no means of coining money, and it wasn't long before they were forced to improvise. And their innovation was a dandy. In 1685 the intendant, Jacques de Meulles, strapped for cash to pay his soldiers and staff, hit on the idea of paying them off with playing cards, which were abundant. He stamped them with the royal coat of arms, signed them, and paid them out at the rate of one card to a four-franc note. The cards were further cut up into halves and quarters for smaller amounts. These playing cards constituted one of the earliest forms of paper money in the western world.
There are the symbols again. They were made. Did they work? Of course they
The Address-Mr. Blackmore worked. Why? Because there were plenty of goods to exchange with them.


Mr. Byrne:: Somebody got skinned.


John Horne Blackmore: The beavers, no doubt!


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Beaver skins.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Let it be a
public fight. Don't keep it so private down there.


John Horne Blackmore: I appreciate the kindness of the hon. member for Calgary West. I continue with the article:
De Meulles and succeeding intendants, fairly responsible men, tried to keep new currency on a sound footing. They would redeem the card money with gold and silver whenever France sent any, taking it back from the merchants when supplies of food, clothing and other commodities came from the old country.
But trouble began in 1690 when a cargo of flour and pork sank on the way out.
Goods, you see.
Similar cargoes went down in 1691 and 1692. The intendant had issued fresh card money against the arrival of these goods. The people and the merchants were stuck with cards, hut no goods, and a great outcry arose. This was perhaps Canada's first taste of inflation.
Altogether the author has done a pretty good job. He shows what caused-what always causes-inflation, namely, a shortage of goods in relation to the amount of money, not' the kind of money, what it was made of, or where it came from. I continue:
The financial structure of the country was undermined by experiences like this, as the French colonial regimes issued more and more unbacked notes during the 18th century struggle for supremacy with England. Only a fraction of the paper money outstanding was redeemed by the French government after the capitulation of Quebec in 1759. Not surprisingly, the whole institution of paper money suffered loss of prestige, and the long-memoried habitants stoutly resisted early attempts to establish banks of currency issue when the British took over.
It is only fair to put that in as part of the article. I continue:
It was through the imperial army, of all institutions, that confidence in paper money was re-established, and the way paved for the rush of private bank openings that featured the early part of the 19th century. To pay running charges of the war of 1812, bills were issued against the credit of Britain. These usually bore interest and, more important, they were redeemed within four or five years.
It does not say whether redeemed in goods. If they were, that was good enough. I continue:
Another distinct phase of Canadian monetary history, the issuance of private paper money, began about 30 years before the banks got into the business, and flourished for several decades. The acceptance of these notes depended on the firm's or individual's reputation. The Montreal antiquarian, P. N. Breton, listed 41 individuals and firms which issued paper money, including several breweries

The Address-Mr. Blackmore and several city corporations. A favourite denomination of the city notes was 7J pence.
Here is the last quotation I shall use:
To say that the world today is more complicated than it has ever been is to state a truism. But for Mr. Average Canadian, the vital matter of currency has achieved a simplicity and uniformity unequalled since the days when the red man ruled'.
That is just the trouble, Your Honour. The ordinary citizen thinks that everything is well with our money, whereas there never was a time when everything was much worse than it is with our money, because our money is simply not adequate to the task we must have it perform.
I should like to thank the Toronto Star Weekly for the article. It shows a desire to have the truth about money. If the Star Weekly will go forward and give the Canadian people the actual facts about money it will perform the greatest service it has ever performed in this country in all its long history.
What is sound money? What is a sound dollar? A dollar having constant buying power. I fancy hon. members will say, "I want a dollar which will buy the same amount of goods ten years from now as it will buy today." That is what everybody thinks about when he thinks about sound money. Our money is a long, long way from that.
I have here a set of figures which hon. members will be interested in. These figures were compiled for me by the finance department and submitted to me in a letter dated March 2,1950. They show the purchasing power of the Canadian dollar from 1927 down to 1949, inclusive. I am going to run down right through the list, so that when it is on Hansard members may read it tomorrow. We are taking the Canadian dollar of 1939 as 100. We are saying it is worth 100 cents. What was the 1939 Canadian dollar worth in 1927? What is that same 1939 dollar worth today? That is what we are asking ourselves, to see whether our Canadian dollar is sound. This table will set out the value of our dollar in the various years, taking the base of 100 for
1939: 1927 		
1928 		
1929 		
1930 		
1931 		
1932 		
1933 		
1934 		
1935 		
1936 		
1937 		
1938 			 99.3
1939 	 	
Not very much soundness about that Canadian dollar, was there? Yet, every dollar of it practically was a good old bank dollar, borrowed from the bank and supposed to be perfectly safe! Going on from 1939, these
are the figures:	
1940 			 96-2
1941 			 90-9
1942 			 86-7
1943 			 85-7
1944 			 85-4
1945 			 85 0
1946 			 82 1
1947 			 74-9
1948 			 65-5
1949 			 63 1
And it is still going down. Will anyone say that is a sound dollar? Well, he will be courageous if he does, and he will have a hard job proving it.
What is a sound dollar? I submit that one definition of a sound dollar is one that does not fluctuate in value. Is a sound dollar money backed by gold? Is it money backed by securities and bonds? Is it money lent by the banks? Is it money backed by the credit of a person, a company or a community?
What is credit? It may be described in two sentences: First, the money-producing power of a country and, secondly, the goods-and-services producing power of the country.
Again, is it always money that is scarce that is sound, as was implied by Mr. Coyne's statement? Is it money that is adequately distributed, like blood? Money has been called the bloodstream of the state. But blood would not be much good to one's body if it did not reach his toes and his hair. Money is not really sound in a state if it cannot reach adequately every individual of the state. Money is the bloodstream of the state, remember!
Now, sound money is money with at least three characteristics: Firstly, it must have plenty of goods and services behind it and in front of it; and, secondly, have behind it or under it a price structure which is not fluctuating unduly; and, thirdly, must be adequately distributed. Anything short of that is not sound money.
There is a monetary problem in the world. "The Story of Money" by Sir Norman Angell, published in 1929, an excellent book, is a very careful study of the whole of the world's money. He closes his work with these words:
One thing at least, then, the survey has proved, that there is a monetary problem, and that the task of its solution deserves the efforts of our wisest economists and boldest statesmen.
That was in 1929, before the depression. Did he know what he was talking about? I submit he probably did.

People generally must come to understand money. The closing words of the introductory note in the same book, just before chapter one, are these:
Money can never be a safe and dependable device in a society made up of people who are ignorant of its nature. We are now facing a monetary revolution.
One sentence more I have left out, because it does not seem to have any bearing on what I am saying. Do you agree with that? Well, if we are facing a monetary revolution, what changes are you going to make? What is the matter? Why do we need a monetary revolution?
In Sir Norman Angell's fine little booklet "Your Money", published in 1936, comprising a series of articles which the Financial Post had Sir Norman Angell prepare in order to set Social Crediters right in 1935, we find the following words on page 1:
Without some knowledge upon which to base such decisions, democracy itself is impossible. To know what we are doing, what we are talking about when we discuss these matters, we must know something of the nature of money. Our whole civilization rests upon insecure foundations so long as most of us are completely ignorant of such a subject as this.
What an astonishing thing, Mr. Speaker, to find so little discussion of money in this house! And almost none in the responsible papers of the country-except that, of course, which seeks to discredit those who wish to discuss money! It seems to indicate that a change of attitude is needed.
I have discussed to some extent what sound money is. I should like now to read into the record a statement which I think is of very great value, and one which I have read before. This is a statement by the Right Hon. Reginald McKenna, chairman of the Midland bank in England for many years. It occurs in his report to his shareholders in January of 1936, and is found in The Times, down in our library, for January 30 of that year. These are, I believe, words of great importance:
We learnt that a shortage of money may be just as vicious in its effects as an excess, though deflation has still a touch of virtue about it in the minds of many people. Nevertheless it is becoming more and more widely recognized that greater productivity calls for an increased supply of money, for otherwise prices will fall, business will stagnate, and the growing productive capacity will be unused.
For money to be truly "sound" there must be enough of it to finance an ordinarily growing volume of trade, yet not so much as to give rise to an inflationary movement of prices.
The whole secret of success in managing our monetary affairs is to build up a system under which we can be sure that there will be plenty of money when there is plenty of
The Address-Mr. Noseworthy goods. The last depression came on because we had plenty of goods and did not know how to get enough money into circulation.
What is enough money? Suppose we accept the statement of Mr. James E. Coyne, that we need a scarcity of money. Scarce in reference to what? Is it the number of people in the community? Is it the goods and services producing capacity of the community? Is it the goods and services actually available for consumption in that community, or the goods and exchanges to be made?
The answer is that it is the goods and exchanges which are to be made. May I quote from "Your Money", by Sir Norman Angell:
Having dealt in the previous article with the chief money illusion-which is broadly that money, even when it is the precious metals, is itself wealth and that a nation enriches itself by the simple fact of increasing its store of money-we deal in this chapter with what might be called the chief money truth. This truth is that when you do increase the quantity of a nation's money out of proportion to the quantity of goods or exchanges to -be made, you get a rise of prices; that when you decrease it, you get a fall.
Our whole problem is to devise a money system whereby we can avoid either an inappropriate increase or an inappropriate decrease of circulating money. I maintain that the only mechanism which has been suggested thus far for doing that very thing is to be found in the Social Credit proposals.


Mr. J. W. Noseworihy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure hon. members who are waiting for the vote that I shall be brief. I am constantly amazed when listening to the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) and caused to wonder why it is that ministers of finance the world over should have to struggle as they do when there is such an easy means at their disposal as outlined by members of the Social Credit group. It is amazing to me that the men in charge of finance in the different nations should not be ready to accept a plan that could be carried out with such great ease.
I rise to support the subamendment. The subamendment moved by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) does not ask us to subscribe to a social credit method of carrying out the principles involved therein. I support it because more than 2,000 people in the riding I represent have written to me within the past few weeks protesting against the means test as applied to old age pensions. I support it because I am confident that these people do not want to have to wait for the removal of the means test until we have established and built up in this country a contributory old age pension scheme.

The Address-Mr. Noseworthy
As has been pointed out, the government committed itself in 1945 to exactly the kind of old age pension provided for in the subamendment, and I quote from page 37 of the green book as follows:
As part of the general proposals now put before the conference, it is proposed that the federal government would establish a system of national old age pensions entirely financed and administered by the federal government, and paid at the uniform rate of $30 per month regardless of means to men and women aged 70 and over in all parts of Canada.
I submit that that is the type of old age pension plan to which this government was committed in 1945, to which it committed itself in the election of 1949 and from which it is trying to get away at the present time. While I am on my feet I should like to read a few quotations from a petition which I presume every hon. member has received from the old age pensioners' society of Manitoba. Speaking of the means test it says:
We regard the means test as one of the most iniquitous pieces of legislation that could be enacted in any country against its citizens.
I would remind the Liberal members of the house that those are almost exactly the words used by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) in his election campaign speeches in June 1949. They go on to say:
We despise and reject any attempt to bring about communism in this land, but we also insist that causes or laws which create a feeling of inequality, dissatisfaction and suffering should be removed at the earliest possible moment.
1.	We, as a body, desire freedom and encouragement to proceed with any kind of labour, for which each individual has been fitted.
2.	To be allowed and assisted to sell the product of our hands or minds just as freely as any other citizen of our country, whether on the old age pension or off it.
3.	To accept jobs or occupations whenever and wherever offered, with the opportunity of being paid for the product of our hands or minds without in any way affecting our pension.
A party that is crying for free enterprise, a party that insists it is maintaining freedom in this country, should be ready to accept this proposal and give to old age pensioners the same type of freedom that they insist should be given to other citizens. The petition continues:
We object to any form of slavery such as the means test imposes (1) when we are denied the privilege of accepting a gift from a relative or friend, without being penalized for it, or being deprived of part or all of our pension.
5. We object to being disallowed to earn anything above the $50 a month limit set without penalty.
The restrictions on the old age pensioners means, frequently, being shut up in a little room, living on one or two meals a day, with no social or congenial surroundings, and not able to attend meetings for mutual satisfaction, because they cannot walk the distances required to do so; and with the meagre pension allowance, increase in rents, cost of living increases, transportation charges, et cetera, they cannot use any means of conveyance.

We are not unmindful of the fact that certain Canadian officials are being paid huge salaries of $25,000 per annum with a pension allowance, not of $40 a month but of $6,000 a year, while others receive a salary of $20,000 a year and receive a pension of $5,000 a year.
That reference to pensions reminds me of a newspaper article dated January 14 which contained an account of the retirement of the manager of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company. This man had been receiving a salary of $209,000 and he was pensioned on January 1, 1950, with a pension of $95,000 a year. I bring that in because of another question raised by my constituents and about which I have received many letters. I refer to the lack of service being given by the Canadian subsidiary of this parent company which can afford to retire its manager on a pension of $95,000 a year. I refer to the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.
In the Toronto area alone today there are close to 12,000 home owners who, although they live in communities that have every other convenience, have applied for telephones but cannot get them although they may be needed in case of sickness or for other reasons. I want to take advantage of this opportunity to call to the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier), under whose department the affairs of that company come, the fact that we have a situation where a utility serving the public, and which is now asking for an increase in its rates after just having floated a new debenture loan, according to its own report has today across Canada approximately 200,000 applications for new telephones and improved telephone services. I think as members of the house we have some responsibility for a company which is rendering as important a public service as the Bell Telephone Company. In addition to registering my protest against the government for failing at' this session to remove the means test from old age pensions, I also want to register my protest against the kind of service we are getting from the Bell Telephone Company in the Toronto area.


James Arthur Ross: I was paired with the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


George Alexander Drew: No, not on division.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Did I understand the main motion to be carried on division; or is there a desire to have a vote?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


George Alexander Drew: No, Mr. Speaker, I wish to have a vote taken.


Arthur Leroy Smith: We want to see how these birds are going to vote.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	What amount of money was voted for health insurance studies for the fiscal years ending in 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949 and 19507
2.	What amount was expended and charged to the above item in the fiscal years ending in 1946, 1947, 1948 and 1949, and how much has been expended and charged to this item thus far in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1950?
3.	To whom was this money paid, and/or in what other ways was it expended?
4.	How much of the time of the persons indicated in the answer to question 3 has been spent on health insurance studies, and what other tasks have these persons performed?
5.	Is there available any report summarizing the results of health insurance studies made under the items noted above?


Mr. Martin:: 1.
Amount voted:
1946	$10,187
1947		 43,555
1948		 27,863
1949		 43,897
1950	 56,451
2.
Net expenditures (For explanations and additional expenditures see answers 3 and 4):
1946	$ 3,122.63
1947		 6,738.17
1948		 18,954.41
1949		 23,589.27
1950		   44,487.13
(to	Jan. 31/50)
Amounts charged to health insurance studies vote:
1946		$ 2,261.26
1947		 4,763.44
1948		 6,918.51
1949		 20,500.55
1950		 43,149.80
(to	Jan. 31/50)
3 and 4.
Re: Fiscal year ended March 31, 1946-
Salaries were paid to-
Dr. K. G. Gray, appointed December 10, 1945, as Assistant
Director of Health Insurance Studies	 $ 1,853.11
Miss M. I. Bunn	 11.89

Questions
Other expenditures-
Cost of living bonus and other
payroll items	 $	1.82
Telephone, telegrams and postage	 2.03
Materials and Supplies	 9.00
Transportation and travelling expenses	 383.41
Additional staff were employed in the directorate of health insurance studies as follows-
Miss Marion VanDusen was employed as full-time secretary to Dr. Gray. Her salary (which for various administrative reasons was charged to the health branch administration vote) should therefore be added to the above	
Mr. J. S. Cudmore, Statistician, was seconded full time to the directorate. His salary (which was paid by the dominion bureau of statistics) should therefore be added to the above ..

Re Dr. Gray's duties-
Upon the establishment of the directorate of health insurance studies on December 29, 1945, Dr. Gray was assigned full time there and performed no other duties	
Re Miss Bunn's duties-
Miss Bunn was actually employed full time in the proprietary or patent medicine division. Her salary (which for various administrative reasons only was charged to the health insurance studies vote) should therefore be deducted from the above	
Net Total	
Re: Additional cost incurred on health insurance studies___
The amount of $3,122.63 does not represent the total expenditure on health insurance studies. During this year the previously established working committee on health insurance was actively engaged in health insurance planning.
This committee consisted of:
Dr. G. B. Chisholm, Deputy Minister of National Health, Chairman; Mr. Alex Skelton, Mr. J. B. Coyne, Mr. J. Howes, Mr. J. T. Marshall, Mr. R. E. Curran, Dr. G. D. W. Cameron (after Dr. Heagerty's retirement), Dr. K. G. Gray.
This committee, with the directorate of health insurance studies, was responsible for the revisions in the 1945 proposals on health insurance submitted to the second session of the dominion-provincial conference on reconstruction. (Statement by the Prime Minister of Canada of April 29, 1946; conference record, pages 386-7).
It is of course not possible to estimate the cost of the work of this committee.
Re: Fiscal year ended March 31, 1947-
Salaries were paid to-
Dr. K. G. Gray	 $	500.00
Miss M. I. Bunn	 7 375 52
Mr. J. W. Willard	377.10
Mr. W. Krutaski	 760.00
Dr. J. L. Little	 2 407 74

Questions
Other expenditures-
Cost of living bonus and other payroll items	 14.04
Telephones, telegrams and postage	 77.79
Sundries	 3.32
Materials and Supplies	 79.59
Transportation and travelling	expenses	 168.05

Additional staff were employed in the directorate of health insurance studies, as follows-
Miss Marion VanDusen was employed on full-time duties in the directorate. Her salary (which for various administrative reasons was charged to the health branch administration vote)
should therefore be added to the above	 1,908.79
Mr. J. S. Cudmore, Statistician, was employed full time in the directorate. His salary ($1,580 of which was paid by the dominion bureau of statistics while on loan from the bureau from April 1-December 31, 1946, and $750 of which was for various administrative reasons charged to the departmental administration vote while actually employed by the directorate of health insurance studies from January 1-March 31,
1947) should therefore be added to the above	 $ 2,330.00

Re: Duties of Miss Bunn, Mr. Willard and Mr. Krutaski-
Miss Bunn was actually employed full time in the proprietary or patent medicine division. Her salary (which for various administrative reasons only was charged to the health insurance studies vote) should therefore be deducted from the above	 $ 1,315.51
Mr. Willard was actually employed in the research division but devoted one-half his time to health insurance studies. One-half his salary should therefore be deducted from the above	 188.55
Mr. Krutaski was actually employed full time in the personnel division. His salary (which for various administrative reasons was charged to the health insurance studies vote) should therefore be
deducted from the above	 760.00	2,264.06
Net total	 $ 6,738.17
Re: Duties of Dr. Gray and Dr. Little-
Dr. Gray worked full time on health insurance studies until his resignation on April 30, 1946, to return to the Ontario provincial service.
Dr. Little was appointed assistant director of health insurance studies after Dr. Gray's resignation, and devoted his full time to that work.
Re: Additional costs incurred on health insurance studies-
The amount of $6,738.17 does not represent the total expenditure on health insurance studies. During this year the research division of the department had under constant review the development of health insurance schemes in other countries. In addition a number of specially concerned divisions of the health branch of the department gave, under the direction of the deputy minister of national health, a great deal of time and attention to problems related to health insurance.
It is of course not possible to estimate the cost of these services.

Questions
Re: Fiscal year ended March 31, 1948-
Salaries were paid to
Dr. J. L. Little	 $ 1,000.00
Mr. W. H. A. Calladine	 393.81
Miss H. Ekstein	 725.50
Miss U. V. P. Tupper	 360.00
Dr. J. H. Horowicz	 275.00
Mr. G. H. Josie	 3,761.29
Other expenditures
Cost of living bonus and other payroll items	
$	15.57Telephones, telegrams and	postage	
54.60Printing, stationery and office	equipment	
84.09Sundries	
2.50Materials and supplies	
154.86Transportation and travelling	expenses	
90.65
Additional staff were employed in the Directorate of Health Insurance Studies, as follows:
Miss Marion VanDusen was employed on full time duties in the directorate. Her salary (which for various administrative reasons was charged to the health branch administration vote) should therefore be added to the above	
Dr. J. H. Horowicz was employed full time in the directorate. His salary, additional to the $275 listed above (which for various administrative reasons was charged to the departmental administration vote) should therefore be added to the above	
Mr. J. S. Cudmore was employed full time in the directorate from April 1 to August 28, when he was granted education leave. His salary (which for various administrative reasons was charged to the health branch administration vote) should therefore be added to the above	
In June, 1947, Dr. H. M. Cassidy of the University of Toronto was appointed to act as technical adviser to the department on matters of social security, including health insurance. In this connection the work of the director of health insurance studies was reorganized and Dr. B. D. B. Layton, chief of the venereal disease control division, was temporarily released from his duties there and put in charge of the directorate. His salary for the period July, 1947, to March 31, 1948 (which was charged to the venereal disease control vote) should therefore be added to the above	
The research division was assigned to co-operate with the directorate of health insurance studies. Mr. J. W. Willard, officer in charge of this division, worked part-time on health insurance. Research assistants-Mr. J. A. MacDonald and Miss B. J. Stewart -worked full time on health insurance studies from July, 1947 to March 31, 1948 and research assistant Mr. C. D. Allen worked full time from September 15, 1947 to March 31, 1948. Their salaries (which were charged to the departmental administration vote) for this period should be added to the above	
Re: Duties of Miss Ekstein and Mr. Josie-
Miss Ekstein and Mr. Josie were actually employed full time in the research division. Their salaries (which for various administrative reasons were charged to the health insurance studies vote) should therefore be deducted from the above..
Net Total

Questions
Re: Additional costs incurred on health insurance studies-
The amount of $18,954.41 does not represent the total expenditure on health insurance studies. A large proportion of the time of the deputy minister of national health, Dr. Cameron, was devoted to over-all direction of and active participation in the work on health insurance. The deputy minister of welfare,
Dr. Davidson, closely co-operated with the health branch in this work. In addition, the legal adviser, Mr. R. E. Curran, and the heads of various divisions concerned-Dr. Moore, Dr. Stogdill,
Dr. Ansley, Dr. Couture, and Mr. Hughes-participated in overall planning as well as in work related to their specific fields.
It is impossible to make an estimate of the proportion of the time of such officials or of Dr. Cassidy and other advisors- and hence of the cost-which was devoted to health insurance studies work.
Re: Fiscal year ended March 31, 1949-
Salaries were paid to the following, who worked full time on
health insurance studies-
Miss A. T. Gotro	 $	310.00
Dr. J. H. Horowicz	 3 337.08
Mrs. N. Ivanoff	 241 07
Mrs. S. Lefebvre	'	 740 qo
Miss U. V. P. Tupper	 1,710.00
Dr. F. W. Jackson	6'264.00
Mr. W. H. A. Calladine	 573.33
Miss G. L. Brommell	 353 qo
Miss M. VanDusen	 2 310.00
Other expenditures-
Telephones, telegrams and postage	 $	588.99
Printing, stationery and office equipment	 879 67
Sundries	]	56.11
Transportation and travelling expenses	 2,587.30
Additional staff were employed in the Directorate of Health Insurance Studies, as follows-
Mr. J. S. Cudmore was employed full time in the Directorate from June 1 to September 15, 1948. His salary for that period (which was charged to the health branch administration vote) should therefore be added to the above	
Dr. B. D. B. Layton was employed full time in the Directorate from April 1 to July 31, 1948. His salary for that period (which was charged to the venereal disease control vote) should therefore be added to the above	
Net Total	
Re: Additional costs incurred on health insurance studies-
The amount of $23,589.27 does not represent the total expenditure on health insurance studies. During this year a considerable proportion of the time of members of the research division was devoted to assigned duties in respect of health insurance studies. The deputy ministers, the legal adviser, and heads of various divisions concerned actively participated in the work of the directorate of health insurance studies. The directorate was also supported by clerical assistance from the departmental secretary's division.
It is impossible to make an estimate of the proportion of the time of such officials and staff which was devoted to this work.


$ 20,500.55 988.72 2,100.00 $23,589.27 HOUSE OF COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
Questions
Re: Fiscal year ending March 31, 1950 (to January 31, 1950) -
Salaries were paid to the following, who worked full time on health insurance studies-
Miss A. T. Gotro	
Miss G. Guilmette	
Dr. J. H. Horowicz	
Mrs. N. Ivanoff	
Mrs. S. Lefebvre	
Dr. M. Langlois	
Mr. F. E. Myles	
Miss B. G. McDonald	
Mr. J. St. Louis	
Miss U. V. P. Tupper	
Dr. G. E. Wride	
Dr. F. W. Jackson	
Miss G. L. Brommell	
Miss M. B. VanDusen	
1.525.00
1.190.00 3,000.00 1,249.50
1.885.00
2.100.00 1,473.33
787.82
320.00
1.550.00 4,932.26
7.731.00
1.855.00
2.100.00
Other expenditures-
Telephones, telegrams and postage	
Printing, stationery and office equipment	
Sundries	
Professional and special services	
Transportation and travelling expenses	
(Includes travelling expenses incurred by Dr. B. D. B. Layton in visiting Great Britain to study national health services there.)
Additional staff were employed in the Directorate of Health Insurance Studies, as follows-
Mr. J. S. Cudmore was employed full time in the directorate. His salary (which was charged to the health branch administration vote) should therefore be added to the above
[Stage Direction]
Net total
[Stage Direction]
With respect to expenditures during 1948-49 and 1949-50: activities in connection with health insurance studies included the administration of the health grants program.
No apportionment of time and cost as between studies on health insurance and grants administration can be made or would be justified. Actually a portion of the clerical and mechanical work could be attributed exclusively to the administration of the health grants program but it is not possible to make such an apportionment. According to the statement of policy by the Prime Minister on May 14, 1948, the implementation of the health grants program is the necessary prerequisite to the introduction of a health insurance scheme. Preventive and curative aspects must be well integrated within any over-all health plan and, therefore, the implementation of the grant's program can not be separated from planning of health insurance.
Information and experience obtained from the implementation of the health grants program is being collated into basic studies on health insurance.

5. A general summary of the activities related to health insurance studies can be found in the annual reports of the department, as follows: For the year ended March 31, 1946, at page 23; for the year ended March 31, 1947, at page 30; for the year ended March 31, 1948, at page 39; for the year ended March 31, 1949, at pages 77-88. In addition numerous intradepartmental memoranda and studies have been prepared by the directorate of health insurance studies on matters related to health insurance.


Mr. Isnor:: What was the total Income tax received for each of the years 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948 from (a) individuals in business as proprietors or partners; (b) corporations; (c) co-operatives?


James Joseph McCann: No analysis is made of actual tax collections, as detailed information is not given about the individual taxpayer at the time the payment is made. Therefore, the following figures represent the tax liability as declared by the taxpayer at the time of

filing and prior to any adjustment which may subsequently be made at the time of assessment.
(a)	Tax liability as declared by individuals in business as sole proprietors or partners:-
1945-	Not available
1946-	$87,386,000
1947-	$98,170,000
1948-	Not yet available
(b)	Income and excess profits tax liability as declared by corporations other than cooperatives:-
1945-	$673,304,000
1946-	$666,635,000
1947-	$650,915,000
1948-	Not yet available
(c)	Income and excess profits tax liability as declared by co-operatives:-
1945-	Exempt
1946-	Exempt
1947-	$1,283,000
1948-	Not yet available
SASKATOON, SASK., GRAIN ELEVATOR Mr. Ross (Souris):
1.	In what year was the government grain storage elevator in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, constructed and at what cost?
2.	What was the cost of administration of the elevator in each of the years 1945 to 1949 inclusive?
3.	What amount of grain was stored in the elevator by months during each of the years 1945 to 1949 inclusive?


Mr. Mcllraith:: 1.
1913-14	 $1,156,133.25
Additions 1931	 475,935.41
Total .
2.
Fiscal Year
1944-	45 .
1945-	46 .
1946-	47 .
1947-	48 .
1948-	49 .
3.
January . . February . March . . . .
April	
May	
June	
July	
August . . . . September . October . . . November . December . 55946-53

Bushels
2,372,464
3,074,480
3,433,904
4,503,094
5,018,559
5,014,113
4,940,070
3,359,512
1,561,324
1,159,824
1,128,695
1,148,337
Questions
Bushels
January . February March .. . April ....
May	
June .... July .... August . . September October . November December
January . February March . . . April .... May .... June .... July .... August . . September October . November December
January . February March . . . April . . ..
May	
June ....
July ....
August ... September October .. November December
January .. February . March . . ..
April ...
May	
June ....
July ....
August . .. September October . . November December
1,052,869
970,219
788,930
742,758
541,836
199,858
200,321
965
40,497
61,654
68,327
Bushels
44,280
22.270 42,444 29,379 13,114
175,640
44.734 20,009
27.271 67,483
104,485
172,077
Bushels
132,815
127,357
138,979
86,479
67,676
109,562
71.734 10,351 16,652 62,876 22,894 26,922
Bushels
21.203
21.203
21.203
21.203
21.203 18,342 12,172
1,384
489
1.739
1.739
DUNDAS, ONT., PUBLIC BUILDING Mr. Lennard:
1.	Are the alterations to the Dundas federal building completed?
2.	If so, how much money was expended on these alterations?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Yes.
2.	$39,149.

Questions
civil service pensions	Mr. Garson:


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How many retired civil servants are receiving pensions of amounts within each of the following brackets: (a) less than $20 per month; (b) 20 to $29.99 per month; (c) $30 to $39.99 per month; (d) $40 to 49.99 per month; (e) $50 to $59.99 per month; (f) $60 to $69.99 per month; (g) $70 to $79.99 per month; (h) $80 to $89.99 per month; (i) $90 to $99.99 per month; (j) $100 per month or over?
2.	How many widows of retired civil servants are
receiving pensions of amounts within each brackets indicated in the above question?			of the
3. What is the number of	retired federal civil		
servants and also the number	of widows	of	retired
civil servants presently residing in each		province?


Mr. Belzile:: 1 and 2. As at February 28, 1950:			
	Retired		
	Civil		
Per month	Servants	Widows	(a) less than $20.00	.. . 253	871(b) $20.00 to $29.99	. . 498	891(c) $30.00 to $39.99	... 677	754(d) $40.00 to $49.99	... 799	610(e) $50.00 to $59.99	.. . 781	468Cf) $60.00 to $69.99	. . 797	243(g) $70.00 to $79.99	... 779	173(h) $80.00 to $89.99	... 860	105(i) $90.00 to $99.99	... 728	74(j) $100.00 or over	... 3,013	1499,185	4,3383. As at February 28, 1950:	Retired	Civil	Servants	Widows	British Columbia	... 1,572	471Alberta	... 374	131Saskatchewan	.. 186	74Manitoba 	. . 386	186Ontario	, . . 4,072	2,056Quebec 	. .. 1,678	927New Brunswick	.. 226	119Nova Scotia	... 373	176Prince Edward Island ....	. . 51	24Newfoundland 	.. 2	4Yukon Territory	. . 6	3Northwest Territories 	. 2	1United States 	. . 96	81British West Indies 	2Overseas	.. 161	839,185	4,338



SEDITIOUS OFFENCES-PROSECUTIONS

Mr. Fleming:: 1.	How many prosecutions have been instituted for seditious offences since the 1936 amendment of section 133 of the Criminal Code?
2.	What was the nature of the offence charged in each case?
3.	What was the outcome of the prosecution in each case?

1.	Two on behalf of the government of Canada. There may be other prosecutions instituted by the attorneys general of the provinces of Canada of which the federal government has no record.
2.	In one case the charge was speaking seditious words against His Majesty the King. The other case was one in which the accused was charged with being a party to a seditious conspiracy.
3.	The outcome in the first case was "charge dismissed". In the second, the accused was convicted but the conviction was later quashed on appeal.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	Are persons of German nationality permitted to enter Canada as immigrants?
2.	If so, under what conditions?


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: 1.	The entry to Canada of German nationals is prohibited by an order respecting enemy aliens passed under the authority of section 38 of the Immigration Act.
As stated by the Minister of Mines and Resources on September 26, 1949, in the House of Commons, special consideration is being given on humanitarian grounds to applications from legal residents of Canada for the admission of the following classes of first degree relatives:-
(a) Wife and unmarried children under 18 years of age; (b) husband; (c) parents 65 years of age and over; (d) bona fide fiancees.
Admission requires the authority of the governor in council.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



WHEAT AGREEMENT


Mr. Argue:: 1.	What sum of money has been transferred from the British wheat agreement for the purchase of other Canadian exports?
2.	What are the various exports, with quantities and value covered by -such transfers?
3.	Will the sum transferred from the British wheat agreement be made available for the purchase of wheat at a future date; if so, at what price per bushel?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	None. However, by arrangement with the United Kingdom ministry of food, the delivery of 12J million bushels of wheat, which would have been deliverable before July 31, 1950, under the Canada-United Kingdom wheat agreement, has been postponed until the early part of the crop year 1950-51.

2.	As part of this arrangement the United Kingdom government agreed to make certain purchases of bacon, salmon and lumber.
Bacon: The bacon to be purchased under this agreement is that provided for in the contract announced by the Minister of Agriculture on the 3rd of January, 1950, which provided for the purchase of $17J million worth of bacon on the basis of 29 cents per pound of grade A Wiltshire sides, f.o.b. Canadian seaboard.
Salmon: The United Kingdom ministry of food has concluded negotiations with a committee representing the industry. The government was not a party to these negotiations.
Lumber: The United Kingdom ministry of supply has called tenders for approximately 40 million feet of eastern softwood.
3.	Since the arrangement in so far as wheat is concerned involves simply the postponement of delivery, the price to be paid on delivery will be the price for the year 194950 agreed under the Canada-United Kingdom wheat agreement; namely, $2.00 per bushel plus carrying charges, basis No. 1 northern in store Fort William/Port Arthur, Vancouver, or Churchill.



SALES TAX


Mr. Fleming:: What amounts have been collected, by years, and in the aggregate, by way of sales tax from the outset thereof on (a) ice cream; (b) other foods: (c) clothing; (d) household furniture?


James Joseph McCann: Information not available. No separate statistics are maintained of sales tax collected on individual commodities.



SALES, DOMESTIC AND FOR EXPORT, ETC.

Mr. Ross (Souris):: 1.	How many bushels of 1949 wheat crop have been delivered under Anglo-Canadian wheat agreement, as of February 28, 1950?
2.	How many bushels of class II wheat have been sold, as of this date?
3.	How many bushels have been sold for domestic consumption, as of this date?
4.	What is the estimate of bushels of 1949 wheat crop, that will be sold under each of these headings as of July 31, 1950?
5.	What has been the average monthly price of class II wheat since August 1, 1949, to date?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1.	Wheat clearances to the United Kingdom during the period August 1, 1949 to February 28, 1950 amounted to 68,809,955 bushels. This figure does not include wheat for flour, the shipment of which is a matter of arrangement between the Canadian mills and the British food ministry.
2.	It is not the policy of the Canadian wheat board to divulge information as to its current sales position.
Questions
3.	See answer to No. 2.
4.	See answer to No. 2.
5.	The average of daily class II prices during the period August 1, 1949 to February 28, 1950 was $2.23 per bushel basis No. 1 northern in store Fort William/Port Arthur and Vancouver. The monthly average class II prices basis No. 1 northern wheat in store Fort William, Port Arthur or Vancouver are as follows:
August, $2.06; September, $2.21; October, $2.38; November, $2.34; December, $2.22; January, $2.14; February, $2.18.
Note: In answering the above questions 1949 wheat crop is interpreted as referring to the crop year commencing August 1, 1949.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Browne (SI. John's West):: 1.	What was the value of the contributions received by the unemployment insurance fund during the month of February, 1950?
2.	What amount of benefits were paid out during the said month?


Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle):: 1.	$9,999,676.84.
2.	$13,605,340.11.



NEWFOUNDLAND


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: What amount of revenue has been collected by the federal government for general sales tax collected from goods consumed in Newfoundland, April 1, 1949, to February 28, 1950?


James Joseph McCann: No record is kept of the sales tax collected on goods consumed in individual provinces but sales tax collected in Newfoundland for the period April 1, 1949 to January 31, 1950, was $1,555,277.51.
No figures are yet available for February 1950.




William Joseph Browne: What amount of revenue has been collected by taxes on (a) tobacco; (b) liquor, in Newfoundland, from April 1, 1949, to February 28, 1950?


James Joseph McCann: The excise duty and tax revenue collected on tobacco in Newfoundland during the ten months' period commencing April 1, 1949, and ending January 31, 1950, was $1,489,971.21.
Likewise, the excise duty revenue on spirits was $50,643.90 and on malt, $330,591.84. There is no excise tax on spirits and malt.
In addition to the foregoing revenue, there is a sales tax of 8 per cent but no separate record is kept showing amounts applicable to each item.

Questions
Goods upon which excise duty, excise tax and sales tax have been paid in other provinces are shipped to Newfoundland, but this revenue is likewise not included in this answer since no record is kept.
No statistics are yet available for the month of February 1950.



LOAN TO THE UNITED KINGDOM

Mr. Fleming:: 1.	What amounts, by months, have been advanced under the United Kingdom loan?
2.	What balance, if any, remains available for further advances?



HOUSING


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has the part of the National Housing Act relating to home improvement loans and home extension loans been proclaimed? If so, when? If not, when will such proclamation be made?
2.	What total amount of money is authorized for (a) home improvement loans; (b) home extension loans?
3.	What amount of money has been lent for (a) and (b) as noted above?
4.	How much money has been lent in connection with urban, and how much in connection with rural home improvement and home extension provisions noted above?


Mr. Belzile:: 
Mr. Prudham:: 1.	P.C. 1180, dated 28th March, 1946, proclaimed part IV of the National Housing Act, 1944, in force effective April 1, 1946, with respect to home extension loans.
With respect to home improvement loans proclamations have been issued only as follows:
(a)	P.C. 6905, dated 1st September, 1944, and P.C. 7061, dated 12th September, 1944, proclaimed part IV of the National Housing Act, 1944, in force as of the 1st day of September, 1944, with respect to home improvement loans and home extension loans made in respect of homes situated in the town of Kamsack, Saskatchewan, and the area adjacent thereto which had been damaged by the cyclone of August 9, 1944.
(b)	P.C. 2752, dated 17th June, 1948, and P.C. 3013, dated 1st July, 1948, proclaimed part IV of the National Housing Act, 1944, in force with respect to home improvement loans made in respect of homes situated in British Columbia which had been damaged by floods occurring in 1948.
General proclamation of part IV of the National Housing Act, 1944, with respect to home improvement loans has been delayed because building materials, particularly plumbing and heating equipment, are still in short supply. An increased demand for these materials, which might well result from the proclamation of part IV, would seriously interfere with completions of new dwellings. The material supply situation is being watched closely and as soon as there is evidence that the supply of plumbing and heating equipment exceeds the demands of new construction, part IV will be proclaimed with respect to home improvement loans.
2.	The aggregate principal amount of the guaranteed home extension loans and the guaranteed home improvement loans is limited by section 19 of the National Housing Act, 1944, to $125,000,000.

Questions
3.	Home improvement loans, nil; home extension loans, $114,090.00.
4.	All home extension loans made to date have been in respect of urban homes.



POST OFFICE EMPLOYEES


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Were the post office employees in Winnipeg given the day off on the occasion of the civic holiday in August, 1949?
2.	If so, did they suffer loss of pay at that time?
3.	If no loss of pay was suffered at that time, was any deduction made from subsequent pay cheques because of the August civic holiday?
4.	Were the post office employees in Ottawa given the day off on the occasion of the civic holiday in August, 1949?
5.	If so, did they suffer loss of pay at that time?
6.	If no loss of pay was suffered at that time, was any deduction made from subsequent pay cheques because of the August civic holiday?
7.	If there was any difference in the treatment of post office employees at Winnipeg and at Ottawa in connection with the above-noted matter, what was the reason for the difference?
8.	Have any steps been taken to eliminate discrimination in this matter?
9.	What was the practice with regard to civic holiday time off for post office employees (a) at Winnipeg; (b) at Ottawa, in 1948, 1947 and 1946?
10.	What will be the situation in connection with this matter for the civic holiday of August, 1950?


Mr. Rinfret:: 1.	No general holiday was allowed. If, however, local service conditions permitted, employees were allowed leave of absence. This was either charged against their leave credits or pay was deducted.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.
4.	Yes.
5.	No.
6.	No.
7.	Action was based on the declaration made by the Secretary of State which restricted civic holiday to the public service throughout the city of Ottawa.
8.	The question is under consideration by the government and a definite decision will be made prior to the observance of civic holiday next summer.
9.	(a) 1946-where practicable, leave without pay;	1947-where practicable, leave
without pay; 1948-leave with pay. (b) 1946, 1947, 1948-leave with pay.
10.	Answered by No. 8.



IMMUNIZATION AGAINST DIPHTHERIA, ETC.

Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Are any studies being carried out to evaluate preparations for the immunization of children against diphtheria, whooping cough, etc.?


Mr. Martin:: Yes. An intensive study of various preparations is being carried out by the
laboratory of hygiene of the Department of National Health and Welfare in collaboration with McGill university and the Connaught medical research laboratories. An accurate method for measuring the value of diphtheria toxoid and tetanus toxoid has been developed. The use of combined antigens, such as diphtheria toxoid and whooping cough vaccine, is under investigation both in the laboratory of hygiene and in the clinical field. The results of these studies will be available shortly.



MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Higgins;: What cost per man per annum Is the province of Newfoundland to pay for the services of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


Mr. Garson:: No agreement for the services of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to enforce provincial laws in the province of Newfoundland has yet been made, but it is likely to be the same as for the other provinces. The existing rate is $1,400 per man per annum.



GANDER, NFLD., AIRPORT    REIMBURSEMENT FOR CONVERSIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS

Gordon Francis Higgins: What was the amount paid to Newfoundland in respect to expenditures made by Newfoundland at Gander airport for conversion of buildings to civil use, runway improvements and the replacement or expansion of plant and equipment between April 1, 1945 and March 31. 1949?


Gleason Belzile: 



$663,964.99. S.S. &quot;BAR HAVEN&quot; AND S.S. &quot;SPRINGDALE&quot;   PURCHASE FROM NEWFOUNDLAND

Gordon Francis Higgins: How much was paid to Newfoundland for (a) S.S. Bar Haven; (b) S.S. Springdale?


Gleason Belzile: (a) and (b) $1,466,933.47.



*HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr. Poulin:: How many Canadian citizens are covered at present by (a) a non-compuisory sickness insurance plan in corporations or companies operating on a profit or non-profit basis; (b) a sickness insurance plan in commerce or industry?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: The information asked for in this question is not available as statistics on this particular subject are not kept.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



WHEAT BOARD


Mr. Wright:: 1.	What were the daily loans made by the Canadian wheat board from the chartered banks from April 1, 1949, to July 31, 1949?
2.	What chartered banks participated in these loans?
Questions


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1.	Loans from chartered banks during the period April 1, 1949, to July 31, 1949, were made as follows:
Royal Bank of Canada, Canadian Bank of Commerce, Bank of Nova Scotia, Imperial Bank of Canada, the Dominion Bank, Bank of Toronto, Banque Canadienne Nationale.
April 1 to June 8 inclusive ...	Nil
June 9	$	468,630.25
10		 1,121,362.47
11		 4,861,268.57
12		 4,861,268.57
13		 6,058,773.75
14		 8,399,979.78
15		 10,781,443.76
16		  14,210,539.15
17		 14,421,150.00
18		 16,425,997.54
19		 16,425,997.54
20		 14,507,042.61
21		 15,314,610.09
22		 14,531,894.23
23		 15,171,138.02
24		 15,164,580.56
25		 16,368,436.37
26		 16,368,436.37
27		 17,523,851.88
28		 18,468,327.77
29		 16,791,701.17
30		 17,775,852.11
July 1 2
4
6
8 9
11
13
15
17
19
20 21 22
24
26
28
30
17,775,852.11
18.761.758.85
18.761.758.85 20,701,947.56 22,049,706.95 22,289,308.02
22.108.425.90 22,682,815.07
23.901.509.49
23.901.509.49 24,959,345.97 24,643,357.87 25,179,049.21
23.552.659.90 23,824,735.47
24.001.715.28
24.001.715.28 24,432,501.34 24,324,117.15 23,559,140.31 22,051,677.23 21,806,925.14
21.974.160.67
21.974.160.67 21,888,438.13 21,631,658.25 22,144,650.62 21,810,791.71
22.621.616.91
23.795.698.28
23.795.698.28
2.	The following chartered banks participated in the above loans: Bank of Montreal,
tMr. Wrlght.l



SCRIPT PREPARED BY LISTER SINCLAIR FOR CBC BROADCAST

Mr. Isnor:: 1.	Was a script prepared by Lister Sinclair dealing with the story of two businessmen, recently used over the trans-Canada network of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
2.	If so, what was the date of broadcast?
3.	Was the script read and approved by (a) program director; (b) general manager?
4.	Who finally approved of said script?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	No.
2,	3 and 4. See answer to No. 1.



HOUSING


Mr. Noseworthy:: 1.	How many housing units does Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation now own in Toronto and York?
2.	In how many of these houses did vacancies occur in 1949?
3.	How many applications for houses did Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation receive in the Toronto and York area during 1949?


Mr. Prudham:: In the city of Toronto and the county of York:
1. 1,020.
2.	71.
3.	1,091.



PRINCE ALBERT NATIONAL PARK


Mr. Coldwell:: 1.	How many miles of highway were built in Prince Albert national park in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1949?
2.	What was the cost per mile for this construction, including clearing, grading and gravelling?
3.	How many miles of highway have been built in Prince Albert national park since March 31, 1949?
4.	What was the cost per mile for this construction, including clearing, grading and gravelling?


Mr. Prudham:: 1.	16-2 miles.
2.	$14,750-moved 22,000 cubic yards per mile.
3.	13-6 miles.
4.	$22,000-moved 32,500 cubic yards per mile.



GANDER, NFLD., AIRPORT    REIMBURSEMENT FOR BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT

Gordon Francis Higgins: What was the amount by which Newfoundland was reimbursed for payments made by Newfoundland for buildings and R.C.A.F. equipment at Gander airport?


Gleason Belzile: 

Questions



PURCHASE OF NORTH YORK, ONT., PROPERTY

Mr. Noseworihy:: 1.	Did Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation at one time own land at the corner of Bathurst street and Lawrence avenue in the township of North York, Ontario?
2.	If so, when was it purchased, from whom, what was the acreage and what was the purchase price?
3.	Has this property been sold recently by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or is Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation at present negotiating for the sale of this property?
4.	If sold, to whom was the sale made, and what was the selling price?


Mr. Prudham:: 1.	Yes.
2.	This land which consisted of 152-03 acres was purchased on June 19, 1947, from Fred J. Mulholland for the sum of $179,868.15 which amount included legal and survey fees.
3.	Yes.
4.	The eastern half of this property comprising 65-38 acres was sold during August, 1949, to the Great West Life Assurance Company and Investors Funding Corporation jointly for the sum of $98,070.00.



WINDSOR, ONT., EMPLOYMENT OFFICE

Mr. Noseworthy:: 1.	Is the new employment office located at 47 Main street north, in Windsor, Ontario, in a rented building or government-owned building?
2.	If rented, from whom and at what rental?
3.	Is the space previously occupied by the unemployment insurance office at 81 Main street, Windsor, now occupied? If so, by whom and at what rental?
4.	Is the building at 81 Main street, government-owned1 property?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	In a rented building.
2.	(a) From Mr. Morris Weisdorf. (b) At an annual rental of $4,560, including all services except minor repairs.
3.	No.
4.	Yes.



INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION


Mr. Lennard:: 1.	How many members of the international joint commission of the St. Lawrence deep-sea waterways is Canada entitled to?
2.	How many have been appointed by Canada to this commission?
3.	Who are they?
4.	Are any of them engineers?
5.	If not, what are the reasons for not appointing one or more engineers to this commision?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: A distinction must be made between the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence basin commission and the international joint commission.
If the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence basin agreement of 1941 is approved and ratified by the United States and Canada, duties in connection with the St. Lawrence deep-sea waterways will devolve upon the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence basin commission, set up under the terms of that agreement, and not upon the international joint commission. The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence basin commission will consist of not more than ten members of whom an equal number will be appointed by the United States and Canadian governments respectively.
Since the commission is not yet in existence, the following answers refer to the international joint commission set up under the terms of the Boundary Waters treaty of 1909.
1.	Three.
2.	Three.
3.	The Hon. J. A. Glen, the Hon. George Spence, General the Hon. A. G. L. McNaughton.
4.	Yes. General McNaughton is a graduate engineer. Mr. Spence has had practical engineering experience.
5.	In view of answer to No. 4, no answer is necessary.



BURLINGTON, ONT., PUBLIC BUILDING

Mr. Lennard:: 1.	Are the additions and alterations to the Burlington public building being done on a cost plus basis or by contract?
2.	When will this job be completed?
3.	How much has been spent to date?


Alphonse Fournier: 1 and 2. No work yet undertaken.
3.	Nil.



UNITED STATES BASES IN NEWFOUNDLAND

Mr. Higgins:: 1.	Is a new agreement being formulated between United States and Canada with respect to the United States bases in Newfoundland?
2.	If so, when is it expected this agreement will be finalized?


Mr. Pearson:: 1.	The practical application of certain aspects of the bases agreement of 1941 is under consideration by the permanent joint board on defence (Canada-United States) which will no doubt report to the Canadian and United States governments in due course.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



NEWFOUNDLAND


Gordon Francis Higgins: What was the amount by which Newfoundland was reimbursed for payments made before March 31, 1949, for railway equipment not delivered until after March 31, 1949?


Gleason Belzile: 



$225,600. HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Questions

Mr. Stewart (Yorklon):: 1.	In the conference held between the dominion government and the representatives of the provincial governments in December, 1948, was the route of the trans-Canada highway selected through all nine provinces represented thereat, and agreed upon?
2.	At such conference did a committee of the dominion government refuse to proceed with negotiations regarding the sharing of costs of the trans-Canada highway following the alleged agreement of the nine provinces to the route and specifications thereof?
3.	As a result thereof, was the project held up for an entire year?
4.	Have all of the said ten provinces of Canada now agreed1 on the route of the trans-Canada highway, and if not, what provinces have not agreed?
5.	If all the provinces have agreed, what was the date on which the last of such provinces to agree did agree?
6.	Following a further conference held in December, 1949, did the federal government agree to submit an agreement to the ten provinces, and if so, has such agreement been submitted, and in what form?
7.	What government selected the route through the province of Saskatchewan, and when was such selection communicated to the federal government?


Mr. Prudham:: 1.	No.
2.	No. The subject of the sharing of costs was not on the agenda and only incidental references were made to it.
3.	No.
4.	No agreements have been signed with any province.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
6.	A draft agreement was forwarded to all provinces on March 1, 1950.
7.	The selection of route is a matter for the provinces. Saskatchewan indicated a choice at the conference in December, 1948, and confirmed it on January 14, 1949.



MAYO MINING DISTRICT, YUKON  HYDRO- ELECTRIC POWER

Mr. Green:: 1.	Did the government have surveys and investigations made during 1948 and 1949 in Mayo mining district of Yukon in anticipation of installing a hydroelectric generating plant?
2.	If so, what have such surveys and investigations cost?
3.	Has the government decided to install such a plant in said district? If so, what is the estimated cost of such installation, and when will such installation be commenced?
4.	If such plant is installed, will it be operated by the government as a public utility? If not, how will it be operated?
5.	Will all mining companies and individuals mining in that mining district and requiring electric power be furnished with it to the extent of the plant's capacity, and at approximately what rate?
6.	Will any mining company have priority in being supplied with power from said plant, and if so. what company?


Mr. Prudham:: 1.	Surveys and investigations were carried out on behalf of the government during 1949 to determine the feasibility of hydroelectric power development on the Mayo river.
2.	The amount spent to date is $45,063.16.
3.	No final decision has as yet been reached.
4.	See answer to No. 3.
5.	See answer to No. 3.
6.	See answer to No. 3.



ST. JEAN L'EVANGELISTE, QUE., RURAL MAIL SERVICE

Mr. Courtemanche:: 1.	Who is the mail carrier at St. Jean l'Evange-liste, Bonaventure county?
2.	Was his contract awarded following tenders? If so, on what date, and in what amount?
3.	What was the amount paid prior to the renewal of the contract?


Mr. Rinfret:: 1.	Edouard Quinn, Jr., contractor for conveyance of mail between Robitaille and Canadian National railway station (Nouvelle) via St. Jean l'Evangeliste.
2.	Yes. 1st March, 1947. $850 per annum.
3.	$519.50 per annum.



CIVIL AIRCRAFT PILOTS


Mr. Benidickson:: What efforts are being made by the Department of National Health and Welfare to control, alleviate or eliminate the occupational disabilities that develop among professional civil pilots?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The most common occupational disabilities that develop among professional civil pilots are:
(1)	Damage to the hearing mechanism caused by the vibration and noise of aircraft and radio navigation aids, and
(2)	Flying fatigue.
Regarding (1), the Department of National Health and Welfare is making a complete survey and study of all causes and effects of hearing damage among civil pilots. This is aimed at establishing ways and means of early recognition of such damage and will establish the patterns whereby civil pilots and the Department of Transport will be advised of necessary control measures.
Regarding (2), this problem has been under study by the Department of National Health and Welfare for some months. Following the completion of this study the department will suggest appropriate hours of flight duty and rest periods for civil pilots, within limits that are economically sound and still consistent with maximum flight safety.

Questions



LEIPZIG FAIR-OFFICIALS IN CANADA

Agar Rodney Adamson: Are there any officials of the Leipzig fair in Canada?


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: Not as far as it is
known.



FOOD AND DRUGS ACT

Mr. Whiteside:: What action was taken (a) during the fiscal year 1947-48; (b) during the fiscal year 1948-49, against those, if any, who contravened the requirements of the Food and Drugs Act and1 regulations?
Mr Marlin:
(a)	It was found necessary to undertake 53 prosecutions. In addition, 136 lots of adulterated or misbranded foods or drugs were seized and destroyed or otherwise disposed of to prevent injury to health, or fraud; 464 shipments from abroad were refused entry into Canada because of adulteration or misbranding; and 1,057 warnings were given to the trade for borderline products and first offences of a minor nature not affecting health.
(b)	There were 65 prosecutions, 106 seizures, 465 import shipments refused entry, and 789 warnings given.



ARMOURIES, DRILL HALLS AND URBAN TRAINING CENTRES

Mr. Pearkes:: What armouries, drill halls and urban training centres for the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army, or the Royal Canadian Air Force are at present under construction in Canada?


Mr. Blanchette:: Royal Canadian Navy, none; Royal Canadian Air Force, none; Canadian Army, an armoury at Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario.



INCOME TAX


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: During the first two months of 1950, how many prosecutions have been launched against farmers, who have failed to file income tax returns in (a) Quebec; (b) Ontario; (c) Manitoba; (d) Alberta; (e) Saskatchewan?


James Joseph McCann: No information available as statistical records are not maintained by the taxation division with respect to the occupation of delinquent taxpayers against whom proceedings have been instituted for failure to file income tax returns.



WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCES

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How many Canadian veterans of world war I, not now eligible for any benefits under the provisions of the War Veterans Allowance Act, could qualify for an allowance thereunder if the United Kingdom were declared a theatre of war in world war I for the purposes of the said act?
2.	How many widows of Canadian veterans of world war I, not now eligible for any benefits under the provisions of the War Veterans Allowance Act, could qualify for an allowance thereunder if the United Kingdom were declared a theatre of war in world war I for the purposes of the said act?


Mr. Mutch:: 1 and 2. Statistics covering these categories have never been compiled.
Estimated number of veterans alive today who served during world war I in the United Kingdom but not in an actual theatre of war as presently defined in the War Veterans Allowance Act: 51,000. Of this number it is not known how many would qualify from the standpoint of financial or other statutory considerations to receive war veterans' allowance.
Estimated number of widows of veterans who served during world war I in the United Kingdom but not in an actual theatre of war as presently defined in the War Veterans Allowance Act: 7,600. Of this number it is not known how many would qualify from the standpoint of financial or other statutory considerations to receive war veterans' allowance.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has the Department of Veterans Affairs any hospitals, or wards In D.V.A. hospitals, for the treatment of mental patients?
2.	How many veterans are hospitalized as mental patients?
3.	Of these, how many are in D.V.A. institutions, and how many are in other hospitals, or other institutions?
4.	Of those in other hospitals or institutions, what are the figures by provinces?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Return as at February 28, 1950:
1.	Yes.
2.	Departmental patients: 2,171.
3.	In D.V.A. institutions: 1,212; in other institutions: 959.
4.	Newfoundland, 16; Prince Edward Island, 12; Nova Scotia, 32; New Brunswick, 3; Quebec, 36; Ontario, 211; Manitoba, 126; Saskatchewan, 128; Alberta, 128; British Columbia, 228; outside Canada, 39.



PATRONAGE

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Who administers, handles, or has charge of, the patronage, on behalf of the federal government, in or for each of the following electoral districts; Beauce, Chicoutimi, Labelle, Papineau, Three Rivers, Brant-Wentworth, Broadview, Carleton, Danforth, Dufferin-Simcoe, Eglinton, Elgin, Frontenac-Add-ington. Greenwood, Grenville-Dundas, Haldimand, Hamilton West, Hastings-Peterborough, Huron North. Lambton West, Lanark, Middlesex East, Peel, Peterborough West, Prince Edward-Lennox, Simcoe

Questions
North, Victoria (Ontario), Waterloo South, Wentworth, York East, York South, York West, and Annapolis-Kings?
2.	Who administered, handled, or had charge of, the patronage, on behalf of the federal government, during the first six months of 1949, in or for each of the following electoral districts: Kamouraska, Jacques Cartier, Prescott, and Restigouche-Mada-waska; who handled it, in each case during each of the following months; July, August, September, and October, 1949, and who now handles it, in each case, and as from what date?


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Does anyone other than the sitting Liberal member administer, handle, or have charge of, the patronage, on behalf of the federal government, in or for any electoral district in Ontario or Quebec at present represented by a Liberal member?
2.	If so, in, or for what electoral districts is such the case, and who does handle it in such cases?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: These questions are somewhat similar in substance to questions asked by the same hon. member on the first of March to which I gave the answer that is reported at page 352 of Hansard. In form, and especially in the French translation, the question is quite objectionable. In the French translation it reads:
De qui releve, qui effectue ou a qui est confiee la distribution des faveurs ministerielles, pour le compte du gouvernement federal...
The English translation of the French is "the distribution of ministerial favours for the account of the federal government." There are no ministerial favours and nothing which could be translated as "ministerial favours" if that is what is meant by patronage. The question in English reads:
Who administers, handles, or has charge of, the patronage on behalf of the federal government . . .
No one has charge of patronage on behalf of the federal government. It may be that certain members or persons make recommendations to ministers about appointments or other matters in connection with the public service, but no one handles or administers patronage for the federal government. The only knowledge I have of anything of that kind is that one of the defeated candidates in a by-election asked me who was going to handle patronage. I told him that to my knowledge there was no patronage, that there were persons who made certain recommendations to which more or less importance was attached, but that was all there was to it. I think this is the kind of partisan political warfare which should not be spread upon the orders of the day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I will comment on this matter on a more appropriate occasion, when I have time.


An hon. Member:: Who does it in Saskatchewan?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will do it now if you will
let me.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS


Mr. Hatfield:: 1.	What was the quantity and value of agricultural commodities imported from the United States in the years 1940 to 1949?
2.	What quantity and value of fresh fruits and vegetables were imported from the United States from 1940, to date?


George James McIlraith: Return tabled.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE

James Arthur Ross: .
1.	Under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, 1939 to date, what amount of money has been deducted from sale of grain at one per cent, and paid into fund by the producers within the provinces of (a) Manitoba; (b) Saskatchewan; (c) Alberta?
2.	What amount of money has been or will be paid out, 1939 to the end of the 1949 crop year, to producers, by provinces, under the act?
3.	How many townships or part townships in each province have qualified for payments under the act during 1949?
4.	How many of the same townships, by provinces, have qualified under the act since and including 1939: (a) 2 years; (b) 3 years; (c) 4 years; (d) 5 years; (e) 6 years; (f) 7 years; (g) 8 years; (h) 9 years; (i) 10 years?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Return tabled.



CARRIAGE OF MAILS BY RAILWAYS

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	During each of the years 1947, 1948 and 1949, what was the total amount of mail carried (a) by the Canadian Pacific Railway, and (b) by the Canadian National Railways between points served by both railways?
2.	Has the government received representations calling for an attempt to equalize the distribution of mail as noted above?
3.	If so, what action has been taken on such representations?



MINISTERS AND PARLIAMENTARY ASSISTANTS- TRAVELLING EXPENSES

Mr. Fraser:: 1.	What was the cost of travelling expenses for each cabinet minister and each parliamentary assistant during the year 1949?
2.	Does this cost include the cost of maintaining private railway cars, air travel, travel by R.C.A.F. planes, and hotels?
3.	If not, what items does it not include?
4.	What was the cost of the above for the first two months of 1950?



NEWFOUNDLAND


William Joseph Browne: What is the amount of revenue received by the Department of the Postmaster General in Newfoundland for the eleven-months period ending February 28, 1950?



IMPORTS OF FUR PELTS

Mr. Lennard:: 1.	How many fur pelts were imported into Canada from January 1, to December 31, 1949?
2.	How many of each variety, and from what countries were they imported?


George James McIlraith: Return tabled.



HAND GRENADES

Mr. Fraser:: 1.	Have any hand grenades been manufactured in Canada during the last five years?
2.	If so, were these hand grenades manufactured for the Department of National Defence only?
3.	If not, were any of the hand grenades sold to firms or individuals in Canada?
4.	Were there any hand grenades in the possession of the Department of National Defence in Canada at the end of world war II?
5.	If so, were any of these hand grenades sold, and to whom?
6.	Is it permissible for any organization, police department, individual or group of individuals to be in possession of hand grenades in Canada?



PRICES INVESTIGATIONS, 1948  COST OF PRINTING

Mr. Maclnnis:: What was the total combined cost including printing of the reports of the special parliamentary committee on prices, 1948, and the royal commission on prices, 1948?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Return tabled.



WESTERN MONITORING SERVICE


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has the government any information about Western Monitoring Service and/or Universal Personal Services, of No. 8, 712 Robson street, Vancouver?
2.	What persons are connected with or operate the same?
3.	What are the sources of their revenue?
4.	What is the nature and purpose of their work?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Return tabled.



LABELLE, QUE., POST OFFICE

Mr. Courlemanche:: 1.	What monthly salary or other remuneration was paid by the Post Office Department to the postmaster of Labelle village for the year 1949?
2.	What is the rental paid at present by the Department of Public Works to the postmaster of the said village for his office, heating included?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Return tabled.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Pouliot:: 1.	Was Private Martin Soucy, E-6982, classed "A" on or about June 19, 1941, at the time of his enlistment?
2.	What was his Pulhems when he was examined by army doctors in 1943?
3.	In 1943, was his Pulhems as follows: l-l-l-l-l-2-1?
4.	In 1944, was his Pulhems as follows: 3-1-1-1-14-4?
Orders for Returns
5.	On or about May 14, 1945, was he advised by the government that he was suffering from varicocele and that such disease was prior to his service?
6.	If so, how could he have been classed "A" at the time of his enlistment in June, 1941?
7.	Why have the P M S of his Pulhems been lowered in 1944 from 1 to 3, 2 to 4 and 1 to 4, respectively?
8.	On what dates was he examined by army doctors after his enlistment, and what are the names of such doctors?
9.	Since his discharge, on what dates and in what localities was he examined by doctors of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and what are the names of the said doctors?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Return tabled.



FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS-LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CALLS

Gordon Knapman Fraser: What was the total cost of (1) long distance calls; (2) telegrams, for (a) each department; (b) each section of each department of the dominion government, for the year 1949?



GOVERNMENT PRINTING CONTRACTS

Mr. Maclnnis:: 1.	Does the government have printing done by private firms?
2.	If so, are tenders called for such printing?
3.	For how many printing jobs were tenders called in the fiscal year 1948-49?
4.	What was the total value of such printing contracts?
5.	Was the tender price of any printing contracts raised after the contract had been let?
6.	If so (a) on how many contracts; (b) what was the total amount of such increases in the period mentioned?



FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PUBLICITY DIVISIONS

Mr. Fraser:: 1.	What departments of the federal government have information or publicity divisions?
2.	How many employees are in each of these divisions as (a) permanent civil servants; (b) temporaries?
3.	What is the total cost of operating each of these divisions?



PREMISES IN OTTAWA OCCUPIED BY CERTAIN GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

Mr. Diefenbaker:: What premises in the city of Ottawa, if any, have been occupied by either the Department of the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the privy council, under lease or for which rental or payment for occupancy has been made since the first day of January, 1940?



DRYDEN, ONTARIO, POST OFFICE-BOXES

Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	How many post office boxes are available for rental in the post office at Dryden, Ontario?
2.	Are there any unfilled requests for post office boxes at this office? If so, how many?
3.	At what date was the longest standing unfilled request for a post office box submitted?
4.	What plans are there for increased facilities to meet the unfilled requests for post office boxes at Dryden post office?
55946-54$

Proposed Legislation TRANSITIONAL MEASURES ACT, 1947



CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN ORDERS AND REGULATIONS

Right Hon.  L. S.@: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to amend the Continuation of Transitional Measures Act, 1947, to provide that the act shall expire on the 30th day of April, 1951.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide that the Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1944, shall continue in force on and after the thirty-first day of March, 1950.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the continuation in force of the Fisheries Prices Support Act, 1944.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Milton Fowler Gregg: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to amend the War Veterans' Allowance Act, 1946, to 
provide benefits for certain former members of His Majesty's forces other than Canadian and for certain former members of the forces of His Majesty's allies or of powers associated with His Majesty, which forces participated with Canada in wars concluding on or before the 31st day of August, 1921, who have resided in Canada for not less than twenty years, and to provide further for decentralizing the administration of the act.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, March 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Martin.
That a joint committee of both houses of parliament be appointed to examine and study the operation and effects of existing legislation of the parliament of Canada and of the several provincial legislatures with respect to old age security; similar legislation in other countries; possible alternative measures of old age security for Canada, with or without a means test for beneficiaries, including plans based on contributory insurance principles; the probable cost thereof and possible methods of providing therefor; the constitutional and financial adjustments, if any, required for the effective operations of such plans and other related matters;
That 28 members of the House of Commons, to be designated by the house at a later date, be members of the joint committee on the part of this house, and that standing order 65 of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto;
That the committee have power to appoint, from among its members, such subcommittees as may be deemed advisable or necessary; to call for persons, papers and records; to sit while the house is sitting, and to report from time to time;
That the committee have power to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee for the use of the committee and of parliament, and that standing order 64 of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto;
And that a message be sent to the Senate requesting that house to unite with this house for the above purpose and to select, if the Senate deems advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed joint committee.
And the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Knowles, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Hansell.
Mr. Speaker:: When this motion was before the house last Friday two amendments were moved. The deputy chairman (Mr. Beaudoin) was in the chair at the time, and while he did not say it in so many words he did bring to the attention of the house the possibility that the amendments might not be in order. I believe we should dispose of that question now.
It seems to me there are several reasons why the amendments might not be in order.

The deputy chairman mentioned standing order 50; and it occurred to me that the amendment might not be in order because the motion before the house is wide enough to include the contents of the amendment. As to the amendment to the amendment, it occurs to me that it would be irregular in that it is not actually an amendment of the amendment. But there is another difficulty in connection with it; that is it widens the scope of the motion before the house, and according to our rules I doubt whether that may be done.
I mention these points in order that hon. members will see my difficulty


Stanley Howard Knowles: If I may speak to the questions that have been raised both by the deputy chairman last Friday evening and by you, sir, tonight, I believe my amendment is in order; and I also feel that the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) should have the right, at least at the proper stage, to move an amendment in the terms of the one he has proposed
Reference has been made to standing order 50. That reference appears in Hansard for March 10 at page 672. Standing order 50, found at page 129 of Beauchesne's third edition, reads:
A motion to refer a bill, resolution or any question to the committee of the whole or any standing or special committee shall preclude all amendment of the main question.
I think it is fair to say that this standing order has been cited in debates on points of order a number of times, and it does create confusion in the minds of some hon. members. It seems to me, however, that if we take a moment to analyse the standing order its wording is clear, and the logic of it is also quite clear. Standing order 50 says in effect that if there is before the house a proposition that I will call A, whether it is a resolution, a bill or a question, and then some hon. member moves what I shall call B, namely a motion to refer A to the committee of the whole or to some standing or special committee, then it is not in order for someone else to try to get around B over to A. In other words as long as there is a motion before the house to refer the earlier question-the question of substance-to a committee, it is not in order to try to get around that motion of reference to amend the terms of the main motion.
I point out, however, that what we have before the house in the motion of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) is not a motion to refer anything at all. It is a motion for the appointment of a committee, a substantive motion in itself. It so happens that the word "refer" does not
Old Age Security
even appear in the motion. Indeed, as yet there is no committee to which this subject could be referred. So I repeat that what is before us is a motion to appoint a committee.
Then I ask Your Honour to take note of standing order 38, found at pages 87 and 88 of Beauchesne's, third edition. It is lengthy and I shall not read it all, but please note:
The following motions are debatable:	Every
motion-
Then follow a series lettered from (a) to (m), and included therein is:
(j) for the appointment of a committee.
There we have clearly stated a rule which applies to the motion before the house. It says that motions such as this one are debatable. Then if Your Honour will note subsection (2) of standing order 38, it says:
(2) All other motions, including adjournment motions, shall be decided without debate or amendment.
Surely it is clear from subsection (2) of standing order 38, which says that other motions shall be decided without debate or amendment, that the motions referred to in subsection (1) paragraphs (a) to (m) are subject to both debate and amendment. In other words I submit it is quite clear that the kind of motion we now have before us, that is a motion for the appointment of a committee, is subject to both debate and amendment; and it is under that right to amend the motion that I claim my right to move my amendment, and also because of that right I submit that standing order 50 does not apply to a motion of this kind.
The Acting Speaker on March 10 also asked us to note certain instances in Hansard of bygone years, and in the Journals. I have looked up the two references he gave us at that time. The first was to page 2588 of Hansard for May 17, 1929, which relates to a motion for Mr. Speaker to leave the chair for the house to go into committee of the whole on a certain proposed money resolution. The leader of the opposition of that day sought to amend the terms of the resolution; and Mr. Speaker, I think correctly, applied standing order 50.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if the hon. member, having spoken to the point raised concerning standing order 50, would direct his remarks to the other difficulty I mentioned; that is, that the motion before the house is wide enough to include his amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall be glad to do that in just a moment, if you will just let me say one other word about amendments to motions of this kind. What I want to say follows what I have been talking about thus far and also

Old Age Security
relates to the point to which you have now directed my attention. I would like you to note that on four occasions, the references to which I can give you, motions to set up committees and indicate their terms of reference have been amended. In at least one of the cases it might have been argued that the enlargement of the terms of reference asked for was already in the motion; but the amendment was permitted. The first of these four cases was in 1925, as found in Hansard, May 1, page 2750. That case is parallel to what we have at the present time-


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the hon. gentleman again? I should like to dispose of this matter tonight, and since it is getting close to eleven o'clock, may I say to him now that, from what I have heard, I shall not base my ruling on standing order No. 50. I should like to hear his representations with respect to the other point which I raised.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right, Mr. Speaker; thank you. I did not understand that before, but in the light of your remarks, I shall not have to go ahead with the other three cases in which amendment of a motion of this kind was permitted.
In respect to the point to which Your Honour directed my attention, I ask you to note citation 537 of Beauchesne's third edition, which is taken from page 469 of Bourinot. It reads as follows:
A committee can only consider these matters-
I believe that is a misprint; it should read "those matters".
-which have been committed to it by the house.
A committee is bound by, and is not at liberty to depart from, the order of reference.
Now, it is that sort of restriction that is placed on a committee to stick to its terms of reference that makes me feel that the main motion, as worded by the minister, is not sufficiently wide to permit the committee to do what I request in my amendment.
The motion as worded by the minister says that the committee can examine and study the operation and effects of existing legislation in Canada and other places. Here is the crux of the matter. It can examine and study possible alternative measures of old age security for Canada, with or without a means test for beneficiaries, including plans based on contributory insurance principles. I do not need to refer to the rest of the motion, as it does not relate to the point. There is the crux of the matter, and the crux of the crux, if I may say so, is the word "alternative". This motion gives the committee the right to study possible alternative measures. I am satisfied that if I were a member of that committee, and I moved that we study the possibility of recommending, not an alternative measure,

but the removal of the means test from the present old age pension, I would be told by the chairman that that went beyond the terms of reference.
It is to make it absolutely clear that we have the right to discuss the proposal I make that I feel my amendment should be placed before the house. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) expressed the other view, namely, that the terms were wide enough. I feel that if that is the case he should not object to my amendment; there would be no harm in making sure. It is not just on that ground that I argue for it. I contend that once we get into that committee, we will not have the right to do what I feel we should do unless this enlargement of the terms of reference is made.


Jean-François Pouliot: I wonder whether the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) or the leader of the opposition has a first mortgage on the floor of the house? Since the opening of the session, they have taken up all the time of the house. The member for Winnipeg North Centre has been splitting hairs again about a motion. The question is just as clear as crystal water or daylight at noon. Here is the part of the motion which interests the hon. gentleman:
. . . possible alternative measures of old age security for Canada, with or without a means test for bene-nciaries, including plans based on contributory insurance principles;
Well, the committee is supposed to report to the house. Who ever heard of a committee being empowered by the house to pass regulations or being substituted for the house to enact legislation? The house will act upon the recommendations which the committee submits to it, and my hon. friend knows it.
To the previous quotation the hon. member added after the words "contributory insurance principles":
. . . and also the possibility of the immediate removal of the means test from the present old age pension.
I believe that is exactly the subject that would be submitted to the committee. Since the hon. gentleman expects to be a member of the committee, he will have an opportunity of suggesting that the committee take immediate steps to do what he requests. It will be up to the committee to decide whether or not that is the thing to do in due course. The reason I object to the amendment submitted by the hon. gentleman is that it is redundant. I am not resuming the debate on the motion; I am merely arguing the point of order, and stating the reason why the amendment should not be accepted.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to thank hon. members for the assistance which they have given to me.

During Friday's debate on the motion of the Minister of National Health and Welfare to appoint a joint committee on old age security, a proposed amendment was moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and a proposed subamendment by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell). During the course of the debate the deputy chairman of committees, who was then in the Speaker's chair, issued a caveat concerning the admissibility of the proposed amendment and subamendment.
I have listened with interest to the very able and cogent arguments which have been advanced to the effect that standing order 50 is not applicable and it may be that on another occasion serious consideration may have to be given to these representations. There are, however, other precedents which must be considered at this time. For instance Bourinot, in his Parliamentary Procedure, fourth edition, at page 316, states clearly that:
The object of an amendment is to effect some alteration in a question . . .
Proposed amendments which neither add to nor subtract from the main motion have been held to be inadmissible. (See Canadian Commons Journals, 1948, volume 74, page 229, and House of Commons Debates for March 8, 1948, at page 1993, and Beauchesne's third edition, citation 407.)
The main motion, in this instance, empowers the proposed joint committee to examine and study "possible alternative measures of old age security for Canada, with or without a means test for beneficiaries, including plans based on contributory insurance principles." The proposed amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would insert immediately thereafter the following words:
. . . and also the possibility of the immediate removal of the means test from the present old age pension;
It seems clear that the words "possible alternative measures of old age security for Canada" are sufficiently broad to cover the removal of the means test from the present old age pension. It seems equally clear that the concluding words:
. . . with or without a means test for beneficiaries, including plans based on contributory insurance principles,
were not intended to, and do not in fact, limit in any way the generality of the immediately preceding words. This being so, I must conclude that the proposed amendment adds nothing to and subtracts nothing from the main motion. Since the proposed amendment is otiose, I must rule that it is out of order. Moreover, even if the proposed amendment would, in fact, have conferred wider powers
Old Age Security
on the committee, it would in my view have run counter to citation 546 of Beauchesne's third edition, which reads as follows:
When the house is considering a motion, of which notice has been given, for the appointment of a select committee, a member cannot move an amendment that the committee be given wider powers than those which were set down in the notice.
I believe that citation applies particularly to the subamendment which was moved by the hon. member for Macleod.
It reads as follows:
That the following words be added to the end of the first paragraph, "and to examine the possibility of granting pensions to incurables who are unable to earn a livelihood."
The amendment being out of order, the proposed subamendment is of course also out of order. However, while it is not necessary for me to do so, I should perhaps add that, in any event, it does not purport to amend the amendment, and therefore it would be inadmissible as a subamendment. (See Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, citation 364.) Moreover, even if moved as an amendment, it would in my view be out of order under citation 546 of Beauchesne's third edition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask one question? I am not going to appeal your ruling or present further argument. May I ask one question?


An hon. Member:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would I be correct in understanding that your ruling that what I asked to be included is not necessary means that the terms of reference do make it possible for the committee to discuss the possibility of removing the means test from the present old age pension?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No doubt about that.


Mr.   Coie@Verdun-La Salle: He mentioned it.


Mr. Speaker:: My ruling was that the amendment adds nothing to nor subtracts in any way from the motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That will hold in the committee.
On motion of Mr. Pouliot the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we shall go into supply and take up the estimates of the Department of National Defence. If the items carry we shall revert to government notices of motion.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 17, 1950